Equivalent Design and Evaluation of the Liner System for a Hazardous Waste Landfill Vertical Expansion

  • Xuede QianEmail author
  • Te-Yang Soong
  • Xianda Zhao
  • Hang Shi
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


An alternative liner system utilizing geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) in lieu of the permitted compacted clay liner (CCL) was proposed for a vertical expansion at a hazardous waste landfill sitting over an existing unregulated landfill. An assessment was conducted to demonstrate that the proposed system is technically-sound and effective and meets all federal and state rule requirements. Two critical equivalency assessment items including (i) steady state solute flux and (ii) chemical adsorptive capacity and solute breakthrough time were evaluated and are discussed in this paper. Based on the evaluations and discussions, the proposed alternative GCL system is equivalent or superior to the currently permitted CCL system and is capable of preventing the migration of hazardous constituents into the groundwater or surface water at least as effectively as the CCL system.


Equivalency Liner system Hazardous waste landfill 


  1. 1.
    Qian X, Koerner RM, Grey DH (2001) Geotechnical aspects of landfill design and construction. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koerner RM, Daniel DE (1993) Technical equivalency assessment of GCLs to CCLs. In: Proceedings of the 7th GRI Seminar, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonaparte R, Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2002) Assessment and recommendations for improving the performance of waste containment systems. EPA/600/R-02/099Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lake CB, Rowe RK (2005) A comparative assessment of volatile organic compound (VOC) sorption to various types of potential GCL bentonites. Geotext Geomembr 23:323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharyya D, Jumawan AB, Grieves RB (2006) Separation of toxic heavy metals by sulfide precipitation. Sep Sci Technol 14(5):441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robinson AK, Sum JC (1980) Sulfide precipitation of heavy metals. EPA-600/2-80-139Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Gisi S, Lofrano G, Grassi M, Notarnicola M (2016) Characteristics and adsorption capacities of low-cost sorbents for wastewater treatment: a review. Sustain Mater Technol 9:10–40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erses AS, Fazal MA, Onay TT, Craig WH (2005) Determination of solid waste sorption capacity for selected heavy metals in landfills. J Hazard Mater 121:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen TH, Kjeldsen P, Albrechtsen HJ, Heron G, Nielsen PH, Bjerg PL, Holm PE (1994) Attenuation of landfill leachate pollutants in aquifers. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 24(2):119–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guan C, Xie H, Wang Y, Chen Y, Jiang Y, Tang X (2014) An analytical model for solute transport through a GCL-based two-layered liner considering biodegradation. Sci Total Environ 466:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shackelford C (2013) Rowe lecture: the role of diffusion in environmental geotechnics. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie H, Thomas HR, Chen Y, Sedighi M, Zhan L, Tang X (2015) Diffusion of organic contaminants in triple-layer composite liners: an analytical modeling approach. Acta Geotech 10:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuede Qian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Te-Yang Soong
    • 2
  • Xianda Zhao
    • 2
  • Hang Shi
    • 2
  1. 1.Michigan Department of Environmental QualityLansingUSA
  2. 2.CTI and Associates, Inc.NoviUSA

Personalised recommendations