Guidance for Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) Waste/Solid Waste #5.03, October 2005

Similar documents
Groundwater Models and Modeling Considerations

An Approach to Siting Solid Waste Disposal Facilities in Minnesota

David Miller, P.E.- Atlanta. The New Coal Ash Regulations Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Waste Management Control Strategies for Landfills. Robert E. Landreth

Leachate Management Leachate Control and Collection

Solid Waste Management Facility Permit Shamrock Environmental Landfill Action: PER004

Groundwater Monitoring Requirements of the CCR Rule What s Next?

2007 World of Coal Ash (WOCA), May 7-10, 2007, Northern Kentucky, USA

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. Groundwater Protection Model ON CONTAMINATED SITES

Basis for Landfill Classification System

Frequently Asked Questions

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AT LANDFILLS

Soil Treatment Facility Design and Operation for Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil. Version 1.0

Amec Foster Wheeler 2015.

LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. INDEPENDENCE PLANT CLASS 3N CCR LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N-R2 AFIN

130A-294. Solid waste management program.

The Relationship Between Water and the CCR Rule

Solid Waste for the Environmental Advisory Council

Groundwater Risk Assessment

Overview of the EPA RCRA Coal Ash Rule

Table 11: Active C&D Debris Facilities in Florida (November 1998) DISTRICT C&D Disposal Land Clearing Debris Disposal

HANFORD SITE MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL

Solid Waste Disposal Facility - Design Criteria

Chemical Constituents in Coal Combustion Residues: Risks and Toxicological Updates

CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN JAMES RIVER POWER STATION UTILITY WASTE LANDFILL CITY UTILITIES OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT. Solid Waste Management Facility Permit Otter Tail Power Co Hoot Lake Plant Action: PER009

In-Situ Containment and Treatment of a Free Phase Hydrocarbon Plume beneath Plant Infrastructure

Disposal Technologies for Hazardous and Toxic Waste

G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, BCEE and Anne Jones-Lee PhD G. Fred Lee & Associates El Macero, CA

FEDERAL REGULATION OF DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE FROM COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS

Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined Landfills to Pollute: Alternative Landfilling Approaches

LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN PLUM POINT ENERGY STATION CLASS 3N CCR LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N AFIN:

A Comparison of Actual vs. Predicted Leachate Generation

Campbell River Environmental Committee 2353 Dolly Varden Road Campbell River, BC V9W 4W5 (Via ) Attention: Leona Adams

Closure Plan Ash Disposal Area PGE Boardman Power Plant

Analysis of Recent Proposals to Amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to Create a Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program

Establishing Critical Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs) for Lead-Affected Soils

Trans- Ash Landfill Benton County, Tennessee Class II Disposal Facility

A Guide to Navigating EPA s Final CCR Rule

Subtitle D Municipal Landfills vs Classical Sanitary Landfills: Are Subtitle D Landfills a Real Improvement?

RE: Crow Wing County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Expansion

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF OIL AND GAS. GENERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT Permit Number: GP-WV-1-07

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE GUIDELINES

Feedlot Construction Setbacks from Open Water and Wells

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AT THE MANAGED SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

Landfill Gas Systems

Soil Cleanup Goals. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division. Guidance Document 19

Las Pulgas Landfill Phase I Clean Closure Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Ca

Bioreactor Landfill Design

The electronic PDF version of this paper is the official archival record for the CCGP journal.

Newmont Mining Corporation Tailing & Heap Leach Facility Management Standard

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels

Effective June 17, 2013, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has been succeeded by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

Planning for the New CCR Rule: A Focus on Groundwater EPA Expected to Finalize Rule by December 2014

The 1984 HSWA Amendments: The Land Disposal Restrictions

Paper Pulp Sludge Characteristics and Applications

BENEFICIAL REUSE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY ASH AS A LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. Bob Worobel Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

Design and Operation of Landfills

Project Summary Compilation of Saturated and Unsaturated Zone Modeling Software

LANDFILL DESIGN - OVERVIEW. ABSTRACT This module gives an overview of landfill design, with some perspective on design calculations as well.

Guidance on RCRA Post Closure Care Period: Long-Term Management for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities

Effects of Liquid Manure Storage Systems on Ground Water Quality

In-Situ Coal Combustion Products Impoundment Closure/Remediation Strategy

Application For Waste Regulation (Check all that apply)

Hello my name is Joy Loughry and I am with the groundwater technical unit of the Minnesota department of natural resources. Today I am going to talk

3I SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

Groundwater Forensics to Evaluate Molybdenum Concentrations Near a CCR Landfill

Human Health and Ecological Risks Associated with Surface Impoundments

Mitigation of the Contaminated Groundwater Plume at the West Valley Demonstration Project, New York, USA 10409

ENVIRONET Conceptual Site Model

Alternative Futures for the City of La Paz, Mexico

Closure Plan Brame Fly Ash Pond

Environmental Information Worksheet

Comments of. Jeffery A. Foran, Ph.D. EHSI, LLC Whitefish Bay, WI. Draft U.S. EPA Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes

Groundwater and Surface Water Data Demonstrate No Adverse Human Health Impact from Coal Ash Management at the Ameren Labadie Energy Center

Statistical Analysis Plan Sherco Unit 3 Landfill

Pond Closures: Solving a Complicated Puzzle

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Environmental Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites

Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions

North America s leader of complete geosynthetic solutions. Golf Course Solutions. To view our complete product line visit us at

GREEN CITY, CLEAN WATERS

Conceptual Groundwater Remedial Alternatives at Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Sites

Comments on the Potential Impacts of the Peoria Disposal Company Landfill Expansion on Public Health, Groundwater Quality and the Environment

Bioreactor Landfills An Innovative Technology for Biostabilization of Municipal Solid Waste

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS AND GROUND WATER MONITORING CHAPTER 13 STATISTICS FOR GROUND WATER QUALITY COMPARISON

GRI Standard GC8 * Determination of the Allowable Flow Rate of a Drainage Geocomposite

Additional criteria for approval of sanitary landfill facility permit to install applications.

Leachate Percolation through Failed Geomembrane of a Geo-Composite Soil Barrier

WM2014 Conference, March 2 6, 2014, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT REVIEW

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY And the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

FULL SCALE OPERATION OF A UNIQUE LANDFILL BIOREACTOR: THE CALGARY BIOCELL

Structured Geomembrane Liners in Landfill Base and Closure Systems

Ottumwa Generating Station Project No Closure Plan for Existing CCR Revision: 0 Surface Impoundments TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geosynthetics Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development of a Landfill Expansion Module in Monterey, California

6. Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons. General Comments Borden, Canada, tracer test Laurens, SC, gasoline spill Bemidji, MN, crude oil spill

Section 2 Corrective Action Objectives

RAIL SHIPMENT AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS FOR THE HEAD OF THE HYLEBOS PROJECT IN COMMENCEMENT BAY

Environmental Management Division. David Amidei NASA HQ

Transcription:

Solid Waste Program Guidance for Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM), October 2005 Contents: Introduction... 1 Background... 1 IWEM... 2 Tier 1 Evaluation... 2 Tier 2 Evaluation... 3 Infiltration Rate... 3 Applicability to Demolition Debris Landfills... 4 Limitations on Liner Design... 4 Applicability to Determining Industrial Waste Acceptance... 4 Limitations to Evaluating Waste Acceptance Criteria... 4 Contact Information... 4 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the state statutes and Minnesota solid waste management rules for landfills is to prevent human exposure to drinking water contamination, prevent contamination of surface water, and preserve groundwater for future uses. In Minnesota, groundwater is owned by the people of the state until it is pumped out. The rules prohibit the placement of landfills in areas that would result in groundwater contamination. Restricted locations include: karst topography, flood plains, sites over valuable water resources, and other areas likely to result in groundwater contamination such as zones of high permeability. Groundwater contamination has happened downgradient from some unlined landfills. The rules leave the MPCA Commissioner with considerable discretion to set location, design, and operational requirements for landfills. Unlike the case with mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and MSW combustor-ash landfills, liners are not required in all cases. While the exercise of discretion has been on some occasions a source of controversy between MPCA staff, citizens, and the regulated community, the exercise of judgment is appropriate because many variables relate to location and site specific decisions. These variables include, but are not limited to, site geology, groundwater flow, receptor locations, receptor types, future land use plans, future groundwater use plans, adjacent uses, surface water locations and local shoreland requirements, costs, alternative waste management options, changes in technology and waste streams, local industry, air emission issues, and incoming waste types. For now, MPCA and the regulated community will be working with rules that allow the commissioner some level of discretion. This guidance will focus on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) which is one model that is available to help facilities determine whether a liner is warranted, and, if so, to evaluate the adequacy of a liner design. This model may be used to assist facilities in the design of liner systems for either industrial or demolition debris landfills in Minnesota. BACKGROUND In February 2003, the USEPA introduced a new computer modeling tool as part of the Guide for Industrial w-sw5-03 1 October 2005

Waste Management which includes the IWEM User s Guide and Technical Background Document. The IWEM Guide was developed by USEPA and twelve state environmental agencies. The IWEM Guide recommends Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water and air and offers a risk-based approach to liner system designs. IWEM is intended for facility managers, regulators, and citizens as a simple-to-use tool to evaluate appropriate liner systems for: IWEM Landfills; Surface impoundments; Waste piles; and Land application. A copy of the IWEM may be obtained from the USEPA at the following web site: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/industd/index.htm. The IWEM is a voluntary guide to recommend a baseline protective design and operating practices to manage nonhazardous industrial wastes throughout the country. The IWEM adopts a multimedia, risk-based approach to protect human health and the environment and recommends BMPs. Key factors that are considered include: protect ground water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, designing and operating landfills; monitor a landfill s impact on the environment; determine necessary corrective actions; close a landfill; and, provide post-closure care. IWEM provides the results of fate and transport modeling of constituents (chemicals) in leachate through subsurface soils to ground water and beyond (to prescribed wells). It utilizes the USEPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transportation Products (EPACMTP). The EPACMTP is not a new tool. It was developed to support risk-based ground water assessments under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It has been used for several years in many other USEPA applications. The IWEM identifies the following evaluation tiers: Tier 1 - screening analysis, based on national data; Tier 2 - location-adjusted, based on inputting limited site specific data; and, Tier 3 - not in model but see the Guide. The IWEM model compares expected leachate concentrations entered to leachate concentration threshold values chosen. USEPA s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Health-Based Numbers (HBNs) are built in to the model. The Minnesota Department of Health s Health Risk Limits (HRLs) may be input into the model during a Tier 2 analysis. The model provides four types of recommendations: 1. Minimum protective liner based on leachate only; 2. Alternative protective liner based on leachate and location data; 3. Maximum concentration levels protectively managed; and 4. Wastes that can be protectively land applied. TIER 1 EVALUATION All facilities should first run the Tier 1 evaluation. For the Tier 1 evaluation, you must identify the constituents of concerns for the waste you are disposing, and enter the expected leachate concentrations for each constituent of concern. The IWEM then determines a minimum recommended liner design that is protective for all waste constituents using Monte Carlo analysis. The Monte Carlo analysis determines the probability that the release of leachate would result in a ground water 3 October 2005

concentration exceeding regulatory or risk-based standards. The Tier 1 evaluation will recommend one of three liner scenarios: no liner is needed to be protective; a single liner is indicated; or, a composite liner is indicated. There are two default liner system designs in the IWEM. The single liner system is based on three feet of compacted clay with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The composite liner system consists of a 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) synthetic membrane over either 3 feet of compacted clay with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/sec. Liner Construction at Otter Tail Power Company s Hoot Lake Landfill. Photo by Kathy Holland-Hanson This does not mean that the MPCA is considering limiting liner designs to the default liner systems in the IWEM. If the Tier 1 evaluation indicates that a liner system is warranted, a liner system should be proposed and a Tier 2 evaluation should be conducted to help determine the adequacy of the proposed liner system. The Tier 1 analysis uses only the expected leachate concentrations in the waste and a generic database of national data. It applies the most stringent controls available in the model. The recommended IWEM liner is designed to be protective at 90% of sites. TIER 2 EVALUATION In the Tier 2 evaluation, you may input more detailed site specific information resulting in a more precise assessment of the landfill. You can also evaluate various other liner system designs to determine their adequacy in protecting the environment and support their use. The IWEM relies on the infiltration rate of the proposed liner system in conducting the Tier 2 evaluation. To run the Tier 2 analysis a limited amount of sitespecific data must be entered into the model: Area, depth, and location (climate) of the facility; Distance to surface water; Distance to the nearest well; Depth of the base of the landfill; Life of the landfill; Waste type; Infiltration rate of the proposed liner system; Unsaturated zone soil type; and Hydrogeologic data: hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, ground water ph, sorption coefficient and biodegradation rate. The EPACMTP models attenuation and bio-chemical transformation based on constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficients. It uses the Monte Carlo simulation (repeated random sampling) to determine probability distribution of predicted ground-water concentrations. INFILTRATION RATE 4 October 2005

The infiltration rate used in the Tier 2 evaluation is an adaptation of Darcy s equation. For the IWEM, you must enter the anticipated infiltration rate per unit area (Q A ) for your proposed liner system design. The IWEM uses metric units, so the unit area is set at 1 square meter (m 2 ) and A, area drops out of the equation. Q A is entered in units of meters/year (m/yr). For compacted clay liners Q A is calculated using the following equation: where, Q = KA dh dl Q A = 315,360 k h L k = hydraulic conductivity, cm/sec L = liner thickness, feet h = maximum head on the liner + L = 1 + L, feet For GCLs and synthetic membranes, Q A should be obtained from the manufacturer. In designing a proposed liner system, you may use the HELP model to predict the infiltration rate. To evaluate an existing liner, it is recommended that infield leak detection system flow rates be used. APPLICABILITY TO DEMOLITION DEBRIS LANDFILLS USEPA states that the IWEM is not recommended for use at demolition debris landfills. The reason for this is that representatives from the demolition debris landfill group were not represented in the development of the model. However, the MPCA has determined that there is no reason why the principles could not be applied to demolition landfills. The IWEM could be used at demolition debris landfills to assist in designing a protective liner system, if required, or to assess the adequacy of the site or the proposed liner for acceptance of industrial wastes at the facility. The MPCA is developing a separate demolition landfill guide to set consistent standards that identify when additional information is needed prior to designing a landfill. The IWEM is a tool that can be used to assist in landfill liner design One drawback to using the IWEM in this manner is that typical demolition landfill leachate is needed to run the IWEM. As part of the last demolition debris landfill rule revision attempt, the MPCA collected existing groundwater monitoring and leachate data from demolition landfills. The MPCA is attempting to compile a list of demolition landfill leachate parameters and typical concentrations. However, most of the data we have is based on ground water monitoring, not leachate, and the leachate data we have is representative of the commingling of construction and demolition debris rather than just demolition debris on its own. LIMITATIONS ON LINER DESIGN One thing to keep in mind when running the Tier 2 analysis for an alternative liner design, the alternative liner is only represented by inputting an infiltration rate into the IWEM. It does not consider what type of liner system whether it is a single or composite liner, or of what type of materials the liner system consists (compacted clay vs. synthetic membrane, etc.). For a single soil liner system you can calculate the infiltration rate using the modified Darcy s equation discussed earlier. For composite liners, you will need to use one of Giroud s equations. Also, the IWEM will not accept a situation where the base of the landfill is below the water table the model recommends that a Tier 3 analysis be conducted. Therefore, the IWEM is not an applicable tool for evaluating in-gradient liner systems. APPLICABILITY TO DETERMINING INDUSTRIAL WASTE ACCEPTANCE 5 October 2005

In developing an Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), facilities need to identify the criteria they plan to enforce prior to waste acceptance. The IWEM may be used to determine whether the proposed criteria will result in protective disposal at the facility by inputting the acceptance criteria and the liner system information into the model. LIMITATIONS TO EVALUATING WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The IWEM assumes that the entire landfill is composed of waste with the leachate characteristics that you input. Therefore, if a certain waste is only going to be 5% of the total landfill volume, somehow a weighted average of the leachate would need to be generated for the IWEM to provide better representative results. CONTACT INFORMATION For more information on other landfills, contact the solid waste engineer the assigned to the region in which your facility is located. Duluth: Brett Ballavance (218)723-4837 Brainerd: Dan Vleck (218)855-5007 Detroit Lakes: Kathy Holland-Hanson (218)846-0470 Marshall/Wilmar: Tony Bello (651)296-7272 Rochester: Sherri Nachtigal (507)280-2997 Metro: Mike Lynn (651)296-8584 Geoff Strack (651)296-7716 Industrial Facilities: Bob Criswell (651)296-8707 Julie Henderson (651)296-8596 6 October 2005