DSHW-2024-007828

USPGI
illllll 0f#fiiflL$o rpo rati o n
July L3 , L992
Dennis Downs, Oirector
Division of SoIid and Hazardous Waste
Department of Environmental QualityState of UtahSaIt Lake City, Utah 84LL4-4880
Subject: Submission of the Report entitled, I'CIay Liner Perform-
ance Test, Landfill Ce1I 5, Grassy Mountain Facility. tt
Dear Mr. Downs:
During the construction of RCRA CelI # 5 at the USPCI Grassy
Mountain Facility, inspectors from the Utah DEQ, DSHW Compliance
Group inquired as to possible affects various, selected fieldconditions at or below the surface of the clay liner rdy, or maynot have on the synthetic liner material placed immediately overthe clay, when pressures simulating a filled-landfil1 scenarioare induced. Subsequently, both USPCI and the DSHW agreed tosimulate the field conditions in the rrlaboratory,t to produce a
congruent set of expected variables in order to definitively
conclude the rracceptability/unacceptablity'! status of theobserved field conditions. Thj-s Test was conducted by USPCITscontractor,
AGEC,fnc. at j-t's Salt Lake City-based office and was visited by
members of your staff on occasion to observe various stages ofthe Test.
The Test results are summarized in the attached report withthe exception of the permeability testing to test conclusion, asthe permeability results to-date have indicated a cell construct-ion component that more-than-adequately meets the design specif-ication. Since the bal-ance of the test will require additionaltine to a1low the pore volume of liquid to flow through the clay,there is no reason to delay the issuance of this report to yourstaff in order to allow the data to be utilized by the inquiring
members. USPCI however, feels that this issue is now adequately
addressed and requests a favorable response to the DEQ evaluationof this report at your earliest convenience. USPCI also feels
compelled to note that this proactive test measure should notunduly interfere with the issuance of the approval to operate
RCRA CelI # 5.
RffiffiffiIVffiM
0iulsion C'Ssli$ & tiamrdous $JffiT'*
udi'ifiiattn*nt st [ntironri
JUI.1 5 1992
8960 North Highway 40 . Lakepoint, Utah 84074.8011252-2000
Page Two/ Clay Liner Test
Cont'd
UsPcI, and it's contractors, are willing to discuss the
contents of the report and the implications the results have uponthe future interpretations of the Construction Quality Assurance
(CaA) PIan specifications and are willing to discuss any needed
modifications to the PIan(s) in order to clarify ambiguous state-
ments in order to circumvent any potential confusion in thefuture. ff you or your staff have any questions concerning thisreport, please contact Ms. Terri Cornett or myself at (801-) 252-
2000 at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your partici-pation in this endeavor.
S inc
Attachmentcc: w/o attach.William Sinclair, Utah DEQ, DSHW
Blake Robertson, Utah DEQ, DSHWScott Anderson, Utah DEQ, DSHW
Stan Zawistowski, USEPA Region VIIf, RCRA
Connie Nakahara, Utah DEQ, DSHW
owsk itern Reqion
gineer ing Serv j-cesir
r
1
e
S
D
D
P
U
I
I
t
I
t
T
T
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
flppfled Geotechnicol €ngi noorlng Consultonts, lnc.
a:
CLAY TINER PERFORT'I.ANCE TEST
TANDFILL CELL 5
GRASSY UOUNTAIN TACILITY
TOOETE COUNTY, UTAH
PREPARED FOR3
usPcr, INc.
8960 NORTH HIGHWAY 40
LAKE POINT, UTAH 8{07 4
ATTN: DENNIS ROI{ANKOTTSKI
PROJECT NO. 15590A JUNE L9, L992
7109 South 185 West, Suite A. Midvale, Utah 84047. [phone]. FAX [phone]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
Hpplled Geotechnlcol €ngl neerlng Consultonts, lnc.
June 18, 1992
USPCI, lnc.
8960 North Highway 40
Lake Point, Utah 8407 4
Attention:
Subject:
Dennis Romankowski
Clay Liner Performance Test
Landfill Cell 5
Grassy Mountain Facility
Tooele County, Utah
Project No. 1559OA
Gentlemen:
Applied GeotechnicalEngineering Consultants, lnc. was requested to conduct a laboratory test
to determine if defects in a clay surface would have an ef fect on the permeability of the clay
liner. Enclosed is a report summarizing the information available to date on the clay liner
performance test.
To date, the test indicates that the permeability has not been significantly effected by tlre
defects in the clay surface. Permeabilities are all below 2 x 1O'8 cm/sec, which is well below
the maximum allowable permeability of 1 x 1O'? cm/sec.
Permeability testing will continue until at least one pore volume of fluid has been allowed to
flow through the clay. Once one pore volume of flow has flowed tlrrough the clay, a dye will
be mixed in tlre water llowing into the sample. After permeating with a dye, the test
apparatus will be disassembled and the clay removed. Hopefully, tlre rlye woulcl allow us to
observe any areas of higher flow through areas of defects.
lf you have any questions. or if we can be of further service, please call.
Sincerely,
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEBING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jarnes E. Nordquist, P.E.
JEN/es
cc: Terri Cornett (USPCI)
Marv Allen (HA&L Engineers)
I 7109 Sourh t8E West, Suite A. Midvale, Utah 84047. [phone]. FAX [phone]
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTTON
PROCEDURE
A. CLAY PREPARATION
B. TESTING DEVICE
CLAY PLACEMENT
CLAY DEFECTS
LOADING AND CONSOLTDATTON
PERMEABILITY TEST
RESULTS
A. CLAY CONDITION
PERI{EABILITY TEST
CONCLUSIONS
COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS
TIME RATE CONSOLIDATTON
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
].
].
1_
L
2
3
5
5
5
5
7
B
FIGURES 1 THROUGH 35
FIGURE 36
FIGURE 37
I
T
t
t
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CI,AY I,INER PERtr'ORII.A}ICE TEST
INTRODUCTION
The clay liner performance test was conducted to measure the effect
defects have on clay liner permeability. The test procedure was
designed to measure the permeability of a clay liner after loading
and consolidation with and without defects.
Clay was placed in the test equipnent and compacted to a dry
density of 94.5 percent of the maximum dry density with a moisture
content 1.9 percent below the optitnum moisture as determined by the
standard Proctor method (ASTI{ D-598).
The test was conducted in three phases. fhe first phase includedclay preparation, placement, compaction, and introduction of
defects. The second phase involved loading and consolidation. Thethird phase is the on-going permeability test. After the
I permeability test is completer dD inspection of the clay and
I deficiencies will be conducted.
Results at this time indicate that the clay liner permeability isless than 2 x 1o-8 cm/sec.
PROCEDURE
A.CLAY PREPARATION
The clay used for the test was obtained from the CeIl 5 double ringinfiltrometer test fifl. A standard Proctor test (ASTM D-698) was
performed on the clay to verify the maxirnum dry density and optimummoisture content (figure 37).The clay moisture content waspercent belowIowered to approximately L9.7 percent which is 1.9the optimum moisture content. The clay hras dried by passing it
through a number 4 sieve and allowing it to air dry.
B. TESTTNG DEVTCE
The testing device is a steel container with dimensions ofapproximately 4 feet square by L-L/z feet deep. The base has beendivided into L2 uniform sections with dimensions of approximatelyLl-LlA inches by 15 inches. The sections begin approximately 2inches from the side walls. The sections are defined with 1 inchhigh 3lL6 inch thick steel dividers. A Ll2 inch drain is locatedin the center of each section. The dividers are designed to
measure the perrneability of the clay above each section (Figure 1).
- The twelve sections are numbered from left to right, top to bottom.
I The drain in each section was covered with a geotextile filter.
I
I
-f--
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Approximately L/2 inch of silica sand was placed over thegeotextile filter in each section to collect fluid that flows out
of the clay. The filter and sand are shown on Figure 2.
The test contains the following downward sequence of materials:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Loading frame and jack
3/L6 inch steel loading plate
4 inches of soil protective cover
Polyf elt TS-7 OO f abric
Gundle XL-14 drainage net
5o-rnil HDPE liner4 inches of clayL/2 inch drain sand
When loading of the clay hras complete, the equipment was modified
to test permeability. The steel p1ate, soil cover, fabric,
drainage net and HDPE was removed. Silica sand was then placed
over the clay to the top of the container. A 3/L5 inch steel plate
was then placed on top and sealed.
Water was introduced into the container using a constant head water
supply, attached by a hose to the top of the testing frame. out
flow was directed by fourteen hoses attached to the outlet drains
at the bottom of the testing frame to separate containers for
measuring outflow.
CIJAY PIJACEI,IENT
Once the clay was at the desired moisture content, it was placed
into the test,ing device (Figure 3). The surface was leveled and
smoothed for compaction (Figure 4). A pneumatic tamper (pogo
stick) was used to compact the clay to approximately 4 inches in
one tift
During compaction, a single rounded rock tras placed in Section No.
I 6t and six rounded rocks were placed in Section No. 9. These
t rocks were tamped below the surface during clay compaction.
A piece of pllnrood was placed on the clay surface during compactionI to rrerp applt even preS=ur" (Figure 5).-I
During the compaction process, it vras observed that the clay
separated from the submerged rock as the compactor approached therock. The clay hras observed to closed against the rock as the
compactor moved over the top of the roek. The clay separated awayas the compactor moved away.
I
I
t
I
-2-
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CLAY DEFECTS
After compaction, lines lrere drawn onthe L2 separate sections ( Figlure 5 ) oclay was determined for each section by
from the top of the container at the
section.
the clay surface outlining
The final thickness of the
measuring the depth to clay
corners and center of each
Different defects hrere placed in the sections, with some sectionsleft undisturbed for control. The defects are shown on Figures 6
and 7. The defects included rocks below the surface, round and
sharp rocks above the surface, cracks, a depressed area, and adried surface. Each section is dbscribed below.
-3-
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
TABLE L - CLAY SURFACE /DEFECT DESCRIPTION
Once the defects were in place and photographed, four-foot squaresections of 6o-rnil HDPE liner, Gundle xI,-14 drainage net, andPolyfelt TS-7OO fabric vrere placed over the clay (Figure 33). Fourinches of soil protective cover was then place in the container.
3/L6rr steel plate was placed over the soil protective cover and theIoading device assembled (Figure 34).
Section Name Description Figure
1 Blister
( spalling
surface)
4tt Diameter I L/ 4" Deepcircular depression,
formed by cutting out
clay.
9
2 Control No modification.t- 1-
3 Control r Dry No modification, allowedto dry overnight.
L3
4 Severe Crack L / ati wide | 3 / 4" deep and
8-L12" Iong rrvrr crack.
Cut with utility knife.
L5
5 Small Crack 8 rr long , 3 / 4" deep,
utility knife blade wide.
L7
6 Single Embedded
Rock
One L-1 /2t' rounded rock
embedded in clay during
compaction.
1_9
7 Six Rounded
Rocks on
Surface
S ix L tr to 1- L / 2" rounded
rocks placed on the clay
surface.
2L
8 Sing1e Rounded
Rock on Surface
One L-L/2tt rounded rock
placed on the clay
surface.
23
9 Six Embedded
Rocks
Six 1rr to L-L / 2" rounded
rocks embedded in clay
during compaction.
25
L0 Control No modification.27
Two Sharp Rocks
on Surface
Two f-- 3 / 4tt sharp edged
rocks placed on clay
surface.
29
1,,Control No modification.3l-
-4-
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
LOADIIIG AIID CONSOIJIDATION
The clay/synthetic material/soil cover was loaded to a stress
ranging from 4900 lbs/ft2 to 51oo lbs/ft2 for 20 days. The
hydraulic system used to load the clay was monitored daily. Thepressure in the system was adjusted as needed to maintain the load
within the prescribed range. DiaI gauges were mounted on each of
the four sides to monitor the deflection (Figure 35). A total of
L-Ll2 inehes of deflection was measured by the gauges during the
Ioading process.
The system was loaded until most of the primary consolidation
appeared to have been completed (Figure 36). The loading system
was disassembled, the soil protective cover, geotextile fabric,
drainage net and liner were removed. The clay surface was then
observed and photographed (Figures 10, L2, L4, L6, 18, 20, 22, 24,
26 28, 30 and 32).
PERUEABILIEY TEST
Once the clay surface had been observed and photographed, thetesting device was fiIled with silica sand from the clay surface tothe top of the testing container. A 3lL6 inch steel cover plate
was sealed and bolted on top. A constant head water reservoir was
connected to provide a head of 11.6 feet. The outlet drains from
each section and the two outlet drains around the perimeter of the
sections were connected to 14 separate containers by plastic tubes.
The flow from each section was measured by weighing the amount ofwater (effluent) in each container on a daily basis. The loss offluid by evaporation was determined by measuring the change in
weight every day for four different volumes of water and effluent.
REgULrS
A.CLAY CONDITION
The clay was placed and compacted to a dry density of 99.1- Lb/fEt,which is 94.5 percent of the maximum dry density. The moisturecontent was 1.9 percent below the optimun moisture content. Theclay surface after compaction was relatively flat with minorindentations left by the wooden platform used in final compaction(Figure 5). The volume of the clay was determined by measuring the
depth to clay from the top of the testing container. Measurementswere taken at the corners and center of every section. The
measurements indicated an over all surface variance of 3/8 inch.
The loading process resulted inis 97 .7 percent of the maximum
a dry density of LOzdry density.
-5-
5 Ib / f{. which
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
The loading pressure on the clay produced minimal deformation of
the original clay surface (Figure 8). There hras some minor
renolding around the rocks, and the rocks placed on the clay
surface hrere partially embedded. The cracks closed slightly and the
edges were rounded. The color and surface of the clay was darker
and smoother than observed prior to loading. A grid pattern, fromthe drainage net was faintly visible by different colors on the
clay surface. Comparative photos of the defects before and after
loading are shown on Figures 9 through 32. A list of the changesfor each section are as follows:
TABLE 2 - CI,AY SURFACE DESCRIPTION AFTER LOADING
Section F' igure
].Blister
( spalling
surface)
Edges rounded slightly.
HDPE supported on clay incenter of depressed area.
l-0
2 Control Smoothing of clay
surface.
L2
3 Control - Dry Dry surface became more
moist.
L4
4 Severe Crack S1ight rounding of edges.
Minimal evidence of
closure.
L6
5 Small Crack Crack appeared to have
closed.
18
5 Sing1e Embedded
Rock
SIight rounding of clay
edge.
20
Six Rounded
Rocks on
Surface
All rocks partially
embedded.
CIay appears to be lessplastic and more brittlein the area around the
rocks.
CIay has mounded slightly
around the rocks.
22
Single Rounded
Rock on Surface
Rock partially embedded.
Clay appears to be lessplastic and more brittle
around the rock.
CIay has mounded slightly
around the rock.
24
9 Six Embedded
Rocks
Slight rounding of clay
edge.
26
-6-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PER!{EABII,ITY TESII
The permeability of the clay was measured to be less than 2 x l-O-8
cm/sec. At this time, approxirnately 20 percent of the pore volume
(volume of voids in clay) of water has flowed from the system.
The results for each of the sections are as follows:
L0 Control Smoothing of clay
surface.
2B
Lt-Two Sharp Rocks
on Surface
Embedded into the claysurface. Some rotationof rock was apparent.
CIay appears to be lessplastic and more brittle
around the rocks.
Clay has mounded slightly
around the rocks.
30
L2 Control Smoothing of clay
surface.
32
TABLE 3 - PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
Section Permeabi I ity
(cm /sec)
Blister (spa1ling surface)L.B x 10-8
Control 7.8 x l-O-e
Control - Dry 3.7 x l-0-e
Severe Crack 3.6 x l-0-9
Small Crack 8.9 x LO-e
Single Embedded Rock 8.5 x LO-e
Six Rounded Rocks on Surface 7.2 x 1O-e
Single Rounded Rock on Surface 3 .7 x 1O-e
Six Embedded Rocks 5.6 x l-o-e
Control 5.3 x 10-e
Two Sharp Rocks on Surface 5.9 x LO-e
Control 7 .7 x L0-e
-7-
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
The average permeability for the whole system as of June L5 is 7.0x 1o-e cm/sec.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance test indicates that the defects introduced into theclay liner have not significantly altered the permeability of theclay. The three most severe defects hrere measured to have thefastest, slowest and nedian permeability. All permeability values
are well below the maximum allowable permeability (1 x L0'7 cm/sec)
for the constructed clay 1iner.
-8-
kil r rI
I
t
I
I
t
T
T
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
t
t
t
T
=1
Testing Frame
Floor Sections With Drain
Figure 1
I
T
t
t
I
I
T
T
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
I
t
I
t
Floor Sections with Filter Screens
Floor Sections with Frozen Sand
Figure 2
I
I
I
T
T
T
T
T
I
t
I
t
T
T
t
T
I
I
I
Placement of CIay
Figure 3
I
I
t
t
T
I
t
I
T
T
I
t
t
T
T
T
I
T
T
CIay Level ing and Smoothing
CIay Compaction
Figure 4
LngAdditiona1 Compacti on for
.:E
Gr id
i_
B_
=E
E.
Iay Surface
E1
1L1
Eu.
:,=.==- +:-
E
,=a aE--=-: ==.:.:. =!Gt=
/^lL
I
T
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
Fi qure S
Loca t ion s
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
Arrangement of Defects
Figure 5
I
I
T
T
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
T
T
Arrangement of Defects
Figure 7
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
CIay Surface After Loading
Figure I
I
T
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
t
I
I
Section LBl-ister Before Loading
I
T
Figure 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Section
Blister After
1_
Loading
Figure 1-0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Secti-on 2
Control Area Before Loading
Figure l- 1-
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
t
Section 2
Control Area After Loading
t
t
I
Figure Lz
Section 3
Dry Area before Loading
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
T
t
I
Figure 13
I
T
I
I
T
t
T
T
I
t
T
I
T
t
T
T
t
T
I
Section
Dry area After
3
Loading
Figure L4
T
I
t
T
I
t
T
T
I
I
T
T
I
t
I
I
T
t
I
Section 4
Severe Crack Before Loading
Figure 15
I
T
T
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
Section 4
Severe Crack After Loading
Figure L6
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
Section 5
Crack Before Loading
Figure L7
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
T
T
I
I
t
t
t
t
t
I
Section 5
Crack After Loading
(Penny used for size comparison)
Figure 1B
t
I
T
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
T
T
t
T
T
t
T
t
I
Section 6
Round Embedded Rock Before Loading
*NE EI\,1BEDDED ROCK
Figure L9
Section 6
Round Embedded Rock After Loading
(Penny used f or si ze comparison)
Figure 20
I
I
t
T
T
I
t
t
T
I
T
T
I
I
T
t
T
I
I
Section
Rounded Surface Rocks
7
Before Loading
=LJHFACE
Figure 2I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
T
I
T
t
t
I
I
t
I
Section 7
Rounded Rocks After Loading
Figure 22
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
T
T
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
Single Rounded
Section B
Surface Rock Before Loading
Figure 23
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
Section I
Surface Rock AfterSing1e Rounded Loading
Figure 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Section 9
Six Embedded Rocks Before Loading
Figiure 25
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
T
I
T
I
Section 9Six Embedded Rocks After Loading
Figure 26
T
T
I
t
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
t
T
T
I
I
T
T
I
Section 10
Control Area Before Loading
Figure 27
t
T
T
T
T
t
I
I
T
I
T
t
I
T
I
I
t
T
t
Section 10Control Area After Loading
Figure ZB
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
T
T
t
T
T
I
I
T
I
I
Section 1l-
Sharp Surface Rocks Before Loading
Figure
T
t
T
T
I
T
I
I
T
T
t
T
I
I
I
T
Secti-onSharp Surface Rocks
11
After Loading
T
t
I
Figure 3 O
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
Section L2
Control Area Before Loading
Figure 3l-
Section L2Control Area After Loading
lr
IT
I
I
t
T
t
t
I
t
T
T
figure 32
:=,E€=
-==
a
=
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
60-mi1. HDPE and Drainaqe Net above CIay
Soil Protective Cover above Liner
Figure 3 3
I
t
I
T
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
T
3 /L6tt Steel Plate above SoiI Protective Cover
Loading Device
Figure 34
t
T
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
f#
Final Testing Configuration for Consolidation Measurement
Figure 3 5
//
//
r
/
/,
/
/
,/
7
)
t/
/
I
LO
f:
.
T'oLO
l-
IIIT
LOc\
I
T-

A,ag:f
.CE
P;trLLo]-o
LO
o
f.
.
.
E
tUE:)oa
oLO
II
LONO
oooc.
loI
OO1'
-
r,iI
oo\f
,
l-oI
oorrl
-oI
oo@ociI
ooLOoCJI
oocvoC;
I
zotr6s
JO
)
8Ez+
8HHB
#t
r
Lutr
ItIIIIIITIIII
Fi
g
u
r
e

36
(s
a
q
c
u
;
)

N
OI
I
V
T
^
I
U

O
J
I
CI
T
T
I
I
I
T
T
t
I
I
T
t
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
Applied Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, lnc.
Sample from:Infiltrometer test fill
Description:Lean clav with deflocculcent
Test Method ASTM D-698
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index
Gradation
Gravel
Sand
Sin & Chy
104 . 9 pcf
2L .6 0/,
45
22
93%
o/lo
o/lo
tLo
Tno
*.,6
troo
E ros
Zero Air Voids Curue for:
G=2.8
G=2.7
G=2.6
l0 15 20
Moisture Content Percent of Dry Weight
COMPACTION TEST RESULTSProiect No. 15590A Figure 37
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
T
I
I
I
T
t
llppl ied Gootochnicol €ngineoring ConsultonEs, lnc.
PROPOSAL
FOR
SYNTHETIC/CLAY LINER PERFORMANCE TEST
LANDFILL CELL 5
GRASSY MOUNTAIN FACILITY
NEAR KNOLLS, UTAH
Presented to:
DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
STATE OF UTAH
Prepared for:
USPCI, lnc.
8960 North Highway 40
Lakepoint, Utah 8407 4
March 5, 1992
7109 South 185 West, Suite A. Midvale, Utah 84047. [phone]. FAX [phone]
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
After inspection and observation of "defects" on the clay surface of Landfill Cell 5 the Division
of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW) issued a Notice of Violation and Order for Compliance
(NOV/CO), dated November 7, 1991. USPCI requested relief by submitting documentation
and technical support on December 2 and 20, 1992 .
DSHW responded to the request for relief in a letter dated February 28, 1992. The DSHW
letter indicates that "A careful review by DSHW of the USPCI submittal, based on the
additional statements made during the meeting, provides no rationale for a change in the
content or conclusion of the NOV/CO".
This proposal summarizes the information submitted by DSHW in regards to No. 8 of the
NOV/CO along with our concerns in following the order. A performance test is suggested to
provide an alternative to the verification inspections of the clay surface of Landfill Cell 5.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE
Findinq No. 8
Clay liner placement and liner surface preparation (specification subpart of the flexible
membrane liner part of Table l) of Section 5. "lnspection activities" of the Grassy
Mountain Facility Construction Quality Assurance Plan for Landfill Construction and
Closure, April 10, 1991, associated with module lllV (C.3) of permit as described by
the following.
and
"Final grading and finishing efforts on the surface of the clay liner shall
leave the surface free from cracking, abrupt breaks in grade, rock,
cobbles, boulders, debris and other forms of material. Final rolling of the
surface of the clay liner shall be done with a smooth drum rollet ot a
steel wheel roller. The surface of the compacted clay liner shall be
smooth, uniform and free from cracks and sudden changes of grade."
"The clay liner or soil protective cover beneath the HDPE liner is to be
smooth and free of all rocks, stones, sticks, roots, sharp objects or
debris of any kind. lt is to be free of irregularities, loose earth and
abrupt changes in grade. The surface is to provide a firm, unyielding
foundation for the membrane..."
The DSHW inspector documented six (6) defects in the clay liner, four (4) defects were
rocks ranging from l 12inch to 1-1 12inch in length and two (2) defects were cracks,
one-quarter inch wide by six inches long that produced a yielding foundation (cracking
and spalling surface) in an area of approximately 1,3O0 to 1 ,500 square feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
Determination of Violations #2
It is determined that USPCI has violated the "clay liner placement and liner surface
preparation specifications of the Grassy Mountain Facility Construction Ouality
Assurance Plan for Landfill Construction and Closure by failing to remove all defects
in the completed clay liner surface prior to placement of the synthetic liner."
Order No. 3
Verify that no defects exist in the clay liner surface under the HDPE liner. According
to the specifications in the Grassy Mountain Facility Construction Ouality Assurance
Plan for Landfill Construction and Closure for Cell 5. This verification shall be
accomplished by USPCI in conjunction with DSHW inspectors, by selecting on a
random basis, 7 twenty foot square (2O feet by 2O feet) areas under the HDPE liner
for examination in each of the 4 sump drainage areas of Cell 5.
RISK OF THE ORDER
The order indicates that 28 - twenty foot square (20 feet by 20 feet) areas of the clay surface
under the HDPE liner be examined in Cell 5. Removal of the soil protective cover, the
synthetic liner and drainage systems would significantly increase the risk of damage to the
soil/synthetic liner system. Listed below is an indication and description of the potential
damage that is anticipated if the inspections are conducted.
1. Damaoe to the Clav Liner - Opening the clay liner to the elements increases the risk of
the following damages.
a. The clay may be torn or potholed as the soil protective cover is excavated. The
clay may also be torn or potholed as the synthetic liner is pulled away from the
clay surface.
b. Wind or water could transport soil on to the clay surface. A layer of fine
sand/silt above the clay would introduce a permeable layer between the clay
surface and the HDPE liner. This would significantly reduce the benefit of the
HDPE/clay liner system.
c. The exposed clay may dry, increasing the risk of cracking and blistering.
d. lf the clay surface needs to be repaired due to the drying, tearing, potholing or
contamination with non-clay soils, heavy equipment will likely be needed to
repair the clay. The transport of repair equipment onto the work area may
damage the synthetic liner material.
Access to inspection areas will require trafficking above the tertiary liner, which
is presently in place and does not have a protective cover.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 4
2. lntroduction of Soil into the Drainaqe Svstem - Materials, which could include the soil
protective cover soils may be introduced into the leachate collection systems. Material
could be transported into these zones by wind, rain or even construction activities.
Presence of soil materials within these systems would reduce their efficiency during
the lifetime of the facility.
PERFORMANCE TEST PROPOSAL
Due to the DSHW response that the "information submitted provides no rationale for change
in the content or conclusions of the NOV/CO" and the risk of damage to the clay liner and the
synthetic liner/drainage system, we recommend that an alternative to the Order be considered.
We propose that the synthetic/clay liner system be modeled in the laboratory. The
performance of the synthetic/clay liner system could be observed and measured with the
observed clay surface "defects" and the anticipated loading conditions. lf the performance
test demonstrates that the minimum standards are maintained with the surface defects,
approval of the clay surface may be possible without visual inspection of Cell 5's in-place and
covered liner.
TESTING PROCEDURE
The laboratory performance test would consist of the construction of a clay test fill
approximately 16 square feet in area and 4 inches thick. The clay liner soils proposed
for the test would be obtained from the Cell 5 Double Ring lnfiltrometer Test Fill. The
clay will be compacted to approximately 95 percent of the maximum density as
determined by ASTM D-698. The moisture content will be approximately 2 percent
below optimum.
The observed defects and a two severe defects
on the clay surface. The defects that would be
include the following:
1. Observed Defects
(not observed) would be introduced
imposed on the test section would
a. A 1 1 12" long rock would be embedded in the clay surface. The rock
would be rounded, similar to the rocks observed in the Cell 5 clay and
will be just visible on the clay surface.
b. A six inch long, one-quarter inch wide crack would be introduced on the
surface of the clay. The crack would be developed by allowing the clay
to dry or by cutting the crack with a knife.
c. A spalling surface will be developed by introducing salt water to the clay
surface and by allowing the surface to dry resulting in salt
crystallization.
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 5
2. Severe Defects (not observed)
A 1 - 112 inch long rock would be placed on top of the clay surface.
The rock would be rounded, similar to the rocks observed in the Cell 5
clay.
b. An area of approximately 2 square feet of clay will be constructed with
a very high moisture content (resulting in a yielding surface). The very
moist soil will be approximately 2 inches thick.
A section of the synthetic materials would then be placed above the clay surface and
"defects". The synthetic materials would consist of (from bottom up) 1. 6O-mil
HDPE; 2. drainage neg 3. 6O-mil HDPE; 4. drainage net; 5. geotextile fabric.
Approximately 4 inches of soil protective cover material would then be placed above
the synthetic materials.
The test fill would then be loaded to a pressure greater than what is anticipated during
the lifetime of the facility (approximately 4,5O0 pounds per square foot). The
consolidation of the clay will be measured while under load.
After at least a week under pressure, or when the primary portion of consolidation is
complete, the test section would be disassembled and the clay surface and HDPE liner
observed.
After observation of the clay surface, the clay liner portion of the test section will be
subjected to water flow to determine the permeability of the clay. The permeability
will be measured in two areas to allow differentiation of clay permeability for the clay
with the observed defects and the clay with "severe" defects. The clay would be
considered suitable with a permeability of 1 x 1O'7 cm/sec or less.
lf distress is observed on the HDPE liner, the liner will be tested for tensile strength
and elongation. The pass/fail criteria included in the COA Plan (Table 3) would apply.
We recommend that interested parties be present when the synthetic materials are placed on
the clay surface and when the synthetic materials are removed after the loading portion of the
test.
3 nroo sTouE
" ?rucTueE
sl^ootr-E P,Oc(
Btot(El-l
tt Pu r.TueG tt
1Ag 15666399 P. A1
RPR- 1 6 -92 THU 9 :59 RGEC
TO;
AT:
APR I 6 1992
J'i'fi'tr'fl*,fif,Jlt-tffi",
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
FAX COVER SHEET
DArE, 4/to/ty
B?.,lt, -I tJ_ &{rh. - pgq
lgg -.b'lt{
FROM:
AT:
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INQ
NUMBER OF PAGES, 3 I'*'LUDING COVER SHEET)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THESE PAGES OR HAVE ANY
PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL AT [phone].
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
FAX NUMBER: (8011 566-6493
THANK YOU.
flppl led Geotpchnlcol €n0lnoeilng Consultonts, ln(.
MEMORANDUM
Blake Robertson (Utah State DEOI
Dennis Homankowski (USPCI-Grassy Mtn,)
Marv Allen (HA&L)
Jim Nordquist %
April 6, 1992
Clay Liner Perforrnance Test
Landfill Cell 5
Project No, 1 5590A
RFR-16-92 THU 9:59 AGEC
To:
1AE 15666599 P. g2
From:
Date:
Subject:
Ever since tho large consolidation/perrnea test was sst Up, March 31 , 1992, wo have
system. To date the soil has cornpressedcontinued to monitor the settlernent of
approxirnately 1-1 12 inches. At tho b ning of the test, we anticipated that the
consolidation would be cornplete in appro tely ons week. Based on the behavior of the
soil, the consolidation appears to be appr
Please find a deforrnation vsrsus log of tirn
Consolidation is basically complete when
the data, which is current as of April I 6,
constant rato (based on log of tirne!.
ately 90 percont complete.
t for the rneasurernents takon on the matorials.
curves begin to flatten. As san be seen from
2, the consolidation is still occurring at a fairly
We plan to dismantte the loading portion of the test on Monday, April 20, 1992 around l0:00
a.m. After observing the surface of the clay, ws will begin the permeability portion of the
test.
lf you have any guastions, or if Monday at 10:00 a.rn, is not a good timo for you to observe
the condition of the clay, please call.
try
re
linr
na'
mi
lot
e(
92
it
e
ril
ri li
trf
1q
rrry
,i'
l
cr
:hr
dr
I
rbl
t
)e
rxi
o)
e
tl
1!
7109 South 185 West, Suite A. Midvale, Utah 84047 r [phone]. FAX [phone]
P.

E3
18
8
1
5
6
6
6
5
9
9
AP
f
t
-
1
5
-
9
2

TH
U

16
:
6
8

RG
E
C
.-
t
Y
:"
d
:
4.,l.5
{f,
*6II
,T
a-
,
{v(6
.)
e-
l
r
'r
e.3
'v
Lu
-b*
d,!
"
+e-/
LI
'r
'
*6{1,
,]
U
{
dJf-i;
-r
-
taz
OooooFoIoou
)
ol
l
J
ot
r
Fi
Etr
lEhFIJ
.
oo
o(
,
-o
J
C)
F
zotrEs
Jo
)
8Ez*
8HHBHt
r
u=tr
88
8
8
8
8
8
C\
I
L
O
A
r
$
N
O
qq
g
r
r
-
c
!
??
?
?
?
?
?
ff
i
If
f
i
J
ff
i
ry
-
ff
i
.1
,
,Z
/
P
l
'J
{
fr
t
tr
l
g
-JU
I
il
T,I
l
,
,t
)[IIl
rl
'i
l
r
,[
-
II
I
(s
e
w
u
r
)

No
u
v
r
^
t
u
o
J
3
o
Biuiult'; uf i;;;i'"i
tlhii fle':a;;n*:i i;i
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Ever since the large consolidation/permeability test was set up, March 31, 1992, we have
continued to monitor the settlement of the system. To date the soil has compressed
approximately 1-112 inches. At the beginning of the test, we anticipated that the
consolidation would be complete in approximately one week. Based on the behavior of the
soil, the consolidation appears to be approximately 90 percent complete.
Please find a deformation versus log of time plot for the measurements taken on the materials.
Consolidation is basically complete when the curves begin to flatten. As can be seen from
the data, which is current as of April 16, 1992, the consolidation is still occurring at a fairly
constant rate (based on log of time).
We plan to dismantle the loading portion of the test on Monday, April 20, 1992 around 1 0:00
a.m. After observing the surface of the clay, we will begin the permeability portion of the
test.
lf you have any questions, or if Monday at 10:OO a.m. is not a good time for you to observe
the condition of the clay, please call.
o*!:ffinvffiili
Hpplied Geotechni.ol engi*ing Coisultonts, lnc. r-PR 2 0 1992
MEMORANDUM
Blake Robertson (Utah State DEO)
Dennis Rornankowski (USPCI-Grassy Mtn.)
Marv Allen (HA&L)
Jim Nordquist %
Apri! 6, 1992
Clay Liner Performance Test
Landfill Cell 5
Project No. 15590A
7109 South 185 West, Suite A. Midvale, Utah 84047. [phone]. FAX [phone]
"1
,
(,^d
:
<{
\
,l.3(Lt:
I()Lvf)
<-
+
(-
,
{Pt(
.>
,
<+
-r
E{(tc.
)
J-
(*
dq*
og.
-
(Ldt9'p
(*
u
-!
6
0)
-J|-q.
)
I6z
oooooroC)ooroa
I^
I

LU
Y
.
ot
r
,z
=TUtr
tL
oo
oC
I
T-
o
J
()
r
zotr6s
Jo
)
8Ez+
8HHA
#t
r
tutr
oo
o
o
o
o
o
()
(
)
o
o
o
o
o
CN
L
O
@
\
f
I
-
O
OO
O
r
r
r
C
{
dd
o
d
d
c
j
c
,
lt
t
t
l
t
t
ff
i
Lf
f
i
J
ff
i
5"
il
<
t
.a
)
il
-
m
,
)

-'
.4
'{
z
,Z
-f
f
i
F
l
{
//
/
tr
/
JU
I
Idat
1t
1t
rt
UI
s{
h
TT
JJ
t
V,
-
(s
a
q
c
u
;
)

NO
I
V
y
U
U
O
J
I
O