Field water balance of landfill final covers.

Landfill covers are critical to waste containment, yet field performance of specific cover designs has not been well documented and seldom been compared in side-by-side testing. A study was conducted to assess the ability of landfill final covers to control percolation into underlying waste. Conventional covers employing resistive barriers as well as alternative covers relying on water-storage principles were monitored in large (10 x 20 m), instrumented drainage lysimeters over a range of climates at 11 field sites in the United States. Surface runoff was a small fraction of the water balance (0-10%, 4% on average) and was nearly insensitive to the cover slope, cover design, or climate. Lateral drainage from internal drainage layers was also a small fraction of the water balance (0-5.0%, 2.0% on average). Average percolation rates for the conventional covers with composite barriers (geomembrane over fine soil) typically were less than 12 mm/yr (1.4% of precipitation) at humid locations and 1.5 mm/yr (0.4% of precipitation) at arid, semiarid, and subhumid locations. Average percolation rates for conventional covers with soil barriers in humid climates were between 52 and 195 mm/yr (6-17% of precipitation), probably due to preferential flow through defects in the soil barrier. Average percolation rates for alternative covers ranged between 33 and 160 mm/yr (6 and 18% of precipitation) in humid climates and generally less than 2.2 mm/yr (0.4% of precipitation) in arid, semiarid, and subhumid climates. One-half (five) of the alternative covers in arid, semiarid, and subhumid climates transmitted less than 0.1 mm of percolation, but two transmitted much more percolation (26.8 and 52 mm) than anticipated during design. The data collected support conclusions from other studies that detailed, site-specific design procedures are very important for successful performance of alternative landfill covers.

[1]  C. Benson,et al.  Field Data from a Capillary Barrier and Model Predictions with UNSAT-H , 1999 .

[2]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Examining the Alternatives , 2003 .

[3]  M. L. Rockhold,et al.  Variations in Recharge at the Hanford Site , 1992 .

[4]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Water Balance Modeling of Earthen Final Covers , 1997 .

[5]  S. Melchior,et al.  In-situ studies on the performance of landfill caps (compacted soil liners, geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, capillary barriers) , 1997 .

[6]  J. Nyhan,et al.  A water balance study of four landfill cover designs varying in slope for semiarid regions , 1997 .

[7]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Capillary Barriers: Design Variables and Water Balance , 2000 .

[8]  Robert M. Koerner,et al.  Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned Dumps , 1997 .

[9]  Stephen F. Dwyer Finding a Better Cover , 2001 .

[10]  Marcus A. Rinehart Evaluating the alternatives of disposal or utilization of the government property at Fort Missoula upon closure. , 1991 .

[11]  Anderson L. Ward,et al.  The Hanford Site 1000-Year Cap Design Test , 2002 .

[12]  Anderson L. Ward,et al.  Performance Evaluation of a Field‐Scale Surface Barrier , 1997 .

[13]  Daniel Hillel,et al.  Groundwater recharge in arid regions: Review and critique of estimation methods , 1988 .

[14]  C. Phene,et al.  Soil Matric Potential Sensor Research and Applications , 1992 .

[15]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Field Evaluation of Alternative Earthen Final Covers , 2001 .

[16]  Gerald N. Flerchinger,et al.  Intercode comparisons for simulating water balance of surficial sediments in semiarid regions , 2002 .

[17]  Gaylon S. Campbell,et al.  Evaluation of simple transmission line oscillators for soil moisture measurement , 1998 .

[18]  Rudolph Bonaparte,et al.  Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes—part I. Geomembrane liners , 1989 .

[19]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Effect of Desiccation on Compacted Natural Clays , 2001 .

[20]  Rudolph Bonaparte,et al.  Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes—Part II. Composite liners☆ , 1989 .