DSHW-2024-006437

Attachment 2
Closure Plan
2023 NUERA Bayview Landfill Permit Renewal Part III June 30, 2023
Page 17

SECTION 4 – CLOSURE PLAN
4.1 GENERAL
Closure of the existing Bayview cells will proceed from the west to east. Closure started with
Cell 1 and will proceeded over the areas of Cell 1.5 and ultimately through the Cell 2 area. The
drawings in Appendix U – Final Cover Cell 1 & Cell 2 show the final cover closure phases for the
existing landfill.
4.2 CELL 1 AREA
The final cover of Cell 1 area was completed in 2008. An alternate final cover consisting
of 34 inches of on-site, olive-brown silty sand was used to close Cell 1. A seed mix
similar to that shown on the table below was used to establish vegetation during 2009.
The side slopes of the landfill were constructed at a 4:I (H:V) slope, with the top slope
being approximately 5%.

Seed Mix for Bayview Landfill
%Mix Type of Grass

0.50% Sand Drop Seed
1.50% Alkali Sacaton
3.50% Blue Grama
17.50% Blue Bunch Wheat Grass
17.50% Indian Rice Grass
3.00% Sandberg Blue Grass
4.00% Sheep Fescue
16.25% Slender Wheat Grass
16.25% Stream Bank Wheat Grass
20.00% Western Wheat Grass
100.00% Total

The final capping system used for Cell 1 varies from the standard design in the Utah
Administrative Code at R315-303-3(4). However, based on modeling performed for the
2003 permit application, the approved cap is equivalent to the standard design in
2023 NUERA Bayview Landfill Permit Renewal Part III June 30, 2023
Page 18

preventing infiltration. A copy of this analysis is included in Appendix V – Closure Cap
Equivalency.
4.3 CELL 1.5 AREA
Cell 1.5 area was constructed between the existing closed Cell 1 (Phase A) and the western
side of the Cell 2 landfill operations. Cell 1.5 area was developed utilizing the same liner and
cover components identified in Cell 2.
4.4 CELL 2 AREA
Landfill Cell 2 is the active landfill area at Bayview. Landfill Cell 2 is not expected to reach
capacity until approximately 2032 or 2033 depending on density and amount of waste
delivered annually to the facility.

The same alternate final capping system as used for Cell 1 area will be used for Cell 2 area
(Phase B through Phase F) when final contours are reached. In general, this capping
system consists of the following layers from the bottom up:

• 6 inches of intermediate cover placed over the daily cover
to provide a 12-inch cushion of soil between the solid waste
and the barrier layer;
• 34-inches of evaporative cap constructed from the olive-
brown silty sand available on-site. The top six inches of this
evaporative cap will be capable of supporting vegetative
growth by amending the soil with compost to aid in initial
seed germination.

Landfill personnel will inspect the completed cap weekly until vegetation is established,
and monthly thereafter to ensure that damage to the capping system is detected and
repaired early. The vegetation on the landfill cap will be maintained to blend into the
surrounding semi-arid landscape.

Landfill personnel will also inspect the completed cap to determine that the final contours
are maintained, and that the flow of stormwater is unimpeded.

2023 NUERA Bayview Landfill Permit Renewal Part III June 30, 2023
Page 19

A seed mix similar to that utilized in the Cell 1 area (Phase A) final cover will be used to
establish vegetation. The side slopes of the final cover above Cell 2 will be constructed at a
4:1 (H:V) slope, with a top slope of approximately 5%. The southern sides of Cell 1, Cell 1.5
and Cell 2 will have interim cover place on them until Cell 3, Cell 5, Cell 7, and Cell 9 are
developed and filled to final cover contours. Appendix E – Bayview Landfill 2023
Development Plan show the locations of the landfill cells.
4.5 CLOSURE PROCEDURES
Closure activities for each phase of the landfill will take place in accordance with the
following procedures:
4.5.1 Submittal of Plans, Specifications, and QA/QC Plan
Four months before the intended closure of each of the phases of landfilling, a design
package consisting of drawings, construction specifications, and a QA/QC plan will be
submitted to the DWMRC. The DWMRC will have approximately 60 days to review and
comment on the adequacy of the drawings, specifications and quality assurance/quality
control measure envisioned for the construction. Comments from DWMRC will be
incorporated into a final “bid” package for the cover construction.
4.5.2 Formal Notification
The Director of the DWMRC will be notified of the intent to implement the closure plan in
whole or part, 60 days prior to the date projected for construction.
4.5.3 Additional Closure Activities
Additional closure activities to close each of the landfill phases are as follows:
• Regrading of all lower side slopes where current slopes are steeper than 4
horizontal to 1 vertical.
• Regrading the top of the landfill slopes to no less than 5%.
• Finalization (including DWMRC comments) of the final cover design package.
Final Cover design package will include, at a minimum, plans, construction
specifications, and QA/QC protocols to guide the construction of the final
cover.
• Bidding and construction of final cover.
• Construction of run-off control structures as needed.
2023 NUERA Bayview Landfill Permit Renewal Part III June 30, 2023
Page 20

• Preparation of As-Built Drawings.
• Vegetation of the final cover soils.
• Inspection of final cover construction by Owner, Engineer (engineer of record)
and DWMRC personnel.
• Preparation of Certificate of Closure by a Utah registered Professional
Engineer.
• Submittal of required documents to the State DWMRC and to the Utah
County Recorder’s office.
4.6 CLOSURE COSTS
The most recent closure cost estimates are presented in Appendix C – Annual Report.
APPENDIX E – BAYVIEW LANDFILL 2023 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

IGES

BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 Development Plan

1 | Page

Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 2
ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
RECENT PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2023 PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................ 5
NEAR-TERM PROJECTS (2024-2031) ............................................................................................................ 6
LONG-TERM PROJECTS (2032 and aBer) ...................................................................................................... 6
LANDFILL CAPACITY ...................................................................................................................................... 7
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX A – DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B – DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

2 | Page

INTRODUCTION
The 660 – acre Bayview Landfill (Bayview) was located, permitted, designed, and constructed
by Provo City Corporation during 1989. The City received a Conditional Use Permit for the
landfill site through the Utah County Board of Adjustment.

The South Utah Valley Solid Waste District (SUVSWD) was formed in 1989 to own and
operate solid waste facilities for the cities of Provo, Salem, Spanish Fork, Springville,
Mapleton, and Goshen, Utah. SUVSWD assumed the existing and previously permitted
landfill operations from the City of Provo in 1990.

In 2016, Northern Utah Environmental Resource Agency (NUERA) purchased Bayview from the
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District. NUERA members planning to uYlize Bayview include
SUVSWD, North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (North Point), Trans-Jordan CiYes, and
Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District.

Bayview was most recently repermi]ed in 2021 with an effecYve permit date of March 26, 2021.
The Bayview permit applicaYon and associated permit can be review at the following links:
h]ps://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiaYon-control/faciliYes/sw-misc-
faciliYes/DSHW-2019-014268.pdf

h]ps://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiaYon-control/faciliYes/south-
utah-valley-sw-dist/DSHW-2021-003264.pdf

In late fall of 2021 NUERA entered into an agreement with the State of Utah School and
InsYtuYonal Trust Lands AdministraYon (SITLA) for the lease of approximately 142 addiYonal
acres to enhance Bayview’s exisYng operaYon. The addiYon of the new SITLA land requires an
updated landfill development plan and an updated landfill permit. This document represents the
Bayview Landfill development plan. Drawing 1 in Appendix A shows the General Arrangement of
Bayview and the locaYon of the new SITLA parcels.

3 | Page

ASSUMPTIONS
The current area being served by Bayview include the ciYes of Provo, Salem, Spanish Fork,
Springville, Mapleton, Goshen, and the communiYes in southern Utah County. Most of the
waste in southern Utah County is transferred to Bayview via the South Utah County Solid
Waste District’s transfer staYon. AddiYonally, since the operaYo ns have changed to NUERA,
waste from northern Utah County is being transferred through North Point Solid Waste
transfer staYon. The annual tonnage of waste received at the landfill was 396,698 tons in
2022. Waste volumes delivered to Bayview are assumed to increase at approximately 2%
per year.

Future waste is anYcipated from both Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District
(Wasatch Integrated) and Trans-Jordan CiYes (Trans-Jordan). Since Wasatch Integrated has
already constructed a transfer staYon and is currently transferring waste from their District,
Wasatch Integrated could be able to transfer their waste to Bayview as early as 2025 when
their exisYng contract for waste disposal is up for renewal. The iniYal volume of waste that
could be transferred from Wasatch Integrated would be approximately 125,000 tons per year.
The waste volumes for Wasatch Integrated are assumed to increase at approximately 2% per
year as well.

Trans -Jordan is in the process of designing and ulYmately building a transfer staYon in Sandy
that could be uYlized to transfer waste by 2032. The current annual volume of waste
managed at Trans-Jordan is approximately 407,000 tons that are assumed to increase at
approximately by 2% per year. IniYal waste to be transferred to Bayview would be
approximately 496,000 tons in 2032.

Several assumpYons have been made regarding the management of waste at Bayview Landfill.
Those assumpYons are that soil use will be approximately 15% of the volume of total airspace
and that compacYon of waste will be approximately 1,500 pounds per cubic yard. The current
earthmoving capacity at Bayview is approximately 125,000 cubic yards of soil annually.

4 | Page

RECENT PROJECTS
Several recent construcYon projects have occurred at Bayview that have enhanced the landfill
life. The first project was the construcYon of Cell 1.5 which was a 6.7 – acre lined landfill cell
completed in the spring of 2020. The addiYon of Cell 1.5 enabled the landfill staff to uYlize the
area between Cell 1 and Cell 2 for the disposal of waste. The locaYon of Cell 1.5 is presented on
Drawing 2 in Appendix A.

The second, and larger construcYon project was the construcYon of Cell 2, Stage 3. Cell 2, Stage
3 was an approximately 18 – acre lined landfill cell completed in October of 2022. The compleYon
of Cell 2, Stage 3 added approximately 3,297,000 cubic yards of net airspace. The 3,297,000 cubic
yards is useable space for the disposal of waste since the airspace of the 15% operaYonal soil has
been deducted from the overall airspace volume. Cell 2, Stage 3 will be ready to accept waste
once the documentaYon of protecYve cover soil is submi]ed and accepted by the Division of
Waste Management and RadiaYon Control (DWMRC). The final acceptance of Cell 2, Stage 3 is
anYcipated by early summer of 2023. The locaYon of Cell 2, Stage 3 is presented on Drawing 3 in
Appendix A.

AddiYonally, as previously menYoned, Bayview was able to enter into an agreement with SITLA.
The SITLA land consists of two parcels as indicated on Drawing 1, Appendix A. The northern SITLA
parcel is likely to be uYlized for ConstrucYon and DemoliYon (C&D) waste while the southern
SITLA parcel will be iniYally uYlized for the stockpiling of operaYonal soils and ulYmately be
available for the disposal of waste.

5 | Page

2023 PROJECTS
The current source for operaYonal soil at Bayview are soils generated via the Cell 2, Stage 4
excavaYon. Soil from the Cell 2, Stage 4 excavaYon is being uYlized for daily cover, final cover and
for the protecYve cover in Cell 2, Stage 3. The final configuraYon of Cell 2, Stage 3 has been
analyzed regarding the opYmal depth of cell excavaYon versus the cost of the incremental
airspace gained by the increased depth of excavaYon. The two alternaYves for Cell 2, Stage 4
excavaYon that were considered were alternaYves where the final leachate sump was located
between Cell 2, Stage 3 and Cell 2, Stage 4 and the alternaYve where the sump was located at the
eastern edge of Cell 2, Stage 4. The decision was made to relocate the permanent leachate sump
between Cell 2, Stage 3 and Cell 2, Stage 4. Moving the leachate sump saved approximately
500,000 cubic yards of excavaYon that would have required accelerated excavaYon of Cell 2, Stage
4 as well as significant stockpiling of soil. The locaYon of Cell 2, Stage 4 is presented on Drawing
4 in Appendix A.

The change in Cell 2, Stage 4 configuraYon will allow for the immediate construcYon of the
permanent leachate sump that will aid in the management of leachate. A construcYon package
for the permanent leachate sump is anYcipated to be developed in the summer of 2023 and
constructed during the fall of 2023 or spring of 2024. The DWMRC will be informed of the
relocaYon of the leachate sump as Bayview’s landfill permit is updated to reflect this development
plan.

As the excavaYon of Cell 2, Stage 4 proceeds, soil from the excavaYon can be uYlized in the
construcYon of the final landfill cover. Prior to the construcYon of the final cover at Bayview, a
construcYon quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) plan will need to be developed. A final
cover QA/QC plan will be developed and submi]ed to the DWMRC for approval to assist Bayview
staff during the construcYon of all subsequent final cover projects. The QA/QC Plan will be
submi]ed to the DWMRC for approval in April of 2023.

Another task to be completed at Bayview Landfill during 2023 is the repermimng of the landfill
to reflect the SITLA parcels and the reconfiguraYon of future landfill cells. Both SITLA parcels will
need to be regraded to manage storm water, construct perimeter fences, and to facilitate changes
in the future landfill operaYons. IniYal regrading of the northern SITLA parcel will allow for the
immediate drainage improvements of that parcel and the establishment of a C&D waste cell if
needed.

6 | Page

NEAR-TERM PROJECTS (2024-2031)
The near-term projects envisioned for Bayview include drainage improvements to the southern
SITLA parcel to divert storm water run-on that currently passes through the center of the landfill
operaYons to the southern side of the landfill property. Concurrent with the regrading of the
southern SITLA parcel to accommodate storm water, the new property boundary will be fenced.

The excavaYon of Cell 2, Stage 4 will conYnue for several years providing a source for final cover
construcYon for the northern sides of Cell 1.5 and Cell 2. Final cover construcYon will take place
annually and be performed by Bayview staff in accordance with the DWMRC approved QA/QC
plan. Cell 2, Stage 4 excavaYon will require Bayview staff to excavate approximately 158,000 cubic
yards per year for 5 years.

The near-term projects will culminate with the construcYon of the Cell 2, Stage 4 liner someYme
near 2028 once the excavaYon of the cell is complete. The Cell 2, Stage 4 liner project will be
comprised of approximately 30-acres of liner installaYon providing over 6 million cubic yards of
net capacity for waste. The addiYonal landfill capacity generated by the construcYon of Cell 2,
Stage 4 will provide approximately six years of operaYonal capacity while the excavaYon of Cell 3
is completed.

LONG-TERM PROJECTS (2032 and aAer)
The long-term projects will start in approximately 2032 with the relocaYon of the site uYliYes
associated with the exisYng shop/office facility. Concurrent with the relocaYon of the uYliYes, a
new shop/office will be constructed near the entrance to the landfill. The relocaYon of the
shop/office will allow for the final excavaYon of Cell 3.

Cell 3 will be the first of several landfill cells located directly south of the exisYng landfill
operaYons. The capacity of Cell 3 through Cell 10 are preliminarily esYmated to require some 10
million yards of soil excavaYon providing approximately 67 million yards of net disposal capacity.
The locaYons Cell 3 through Cell 10 are presented on Drawing 5, Appendix A. The locaYons of Cell
4 through Cell 10 are presented on Drawing 5, Appendix A.

The anYcipated Bayview Master Plan is presented on Drawing 6, Appendix A.

7 | Page

LANDFILL CAPACITY
The development of adequate disposal capacity is the primary factor regarding the Bayview
master plan. The scheduled construcYon of the landfill cells reflects the anYcipated waste
disposal needs of the NUERA partners and residents in Utah County. The current volume of waste
delivered to Bayview is approximately 400,000 tons per year. Plans are for approximately 125,000
tons of waste per year from Wasatch Integrated starYng in 2025 and for approximately 500,000
tons of waste per year from Trans-Jordan starYng in 2032. All waste streams are esYmated to
increase at approximately 2% annually.

As previously menYoned, the current soil moving capacity of the staff and equipment at Bayview
is approximately 125,000 cubic yards per year with minimal stockpiling of soil. As currently
planned, the excavaYon of Cell 2, Stage 4 and Cell 3 will require moving approximately 2 million
cubic yards of soil in the next ten years. The earthmoving capacity at Bayview will need to be
enhanced and soil stockpiling increased to meet the required excavaYon schedule.

At the start of 2023, the current net disposal capacity at Bayview is approximately 4.8 million
cubic yards including the airspace generated from the Cell 2, Stage 3 project. This will provide
adequate disposal capacity for five years while Cell 2, Stage 4 is excavated and constructed. The
airspace generated from the construcYon of Cell 2, Stage 4 will be sufficient for an addiYonal six
years unYl Cell 3 is operaYonal in approximately 2034. The details of the generaYon and use of
airspace can be found on the “Bayview Development Timeline” spreadsheet presented in
Appendix B.
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The development Ymeline for Bayview is visually presented on the “Bayview Development
Timeline” chart presented in Appendix B.

APPENDIX A

CLOSED LANDFILL
(CELL 1)
ACTIVE LANDFILL
(CELL 2 )
WATER
TANK
PUMP
HOUSE
SITLA
(NEW)
SITLA
(NEW)
ADMIN. OFFICE &
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
GATE
12
6
0
0

W
E
S
T

(
S
R
-
6
8

)
ACCESS ROAD
LEACHATE
POND
RETENTION
POND
PERIMETER
FENCE
SCALE
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ELBERTA, UTAHGENERAL ARRANGEMENT
03/17/23
1-
1
NTS
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW
CELL 1.5
ADMIN. OFFICE &
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
GATE
ACCESS ROAD
SCALE
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 DEVELOPMENT PLANELBERTA, UTAH
CELL 1.5 EXTENTS (2020)
03/17/23
2-
1
1"=800'
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW
2020 - CELL 1.5 EXTENTS
Feet
0 400 800
CELL 2
STAGE 3
ADMIN. OFFICE &
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
GATE
ACCESS ROAD
SCALE
LEACHATE
SUMP
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL2023 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GOSHEN, UTAH
CELL 2 STAGE 3 EXTENTS (2022)
03/17/23
3-
1
1"=800'
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW
Feet
0 400 800
2022- CELL 2 STAGE 3 LINER EXTENTS
CELL 2
STAGE 4
(FUTURE)
ADMIN. OFFICE &
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
GATE
ACCESS ROAD
SCALE
LEACHATE
SUMP
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 DEVELOPMENT PLANELBERTA, UTAH
CELL 2 STAGE 4 EXTENTS (2028)
03/17/23
4-
1
1"=800'
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW
Feet
0 400 800
CELL 2 STAGE 4
EXCAVATION: 791,240 CU-YD
NET AIRSPACE: 6,030,367 CU-YD
CELL 3
CELL 4
CELL 5 CELL 7 CELL 9
CELL 6 CELL 8 CELL 10
GATESCALE
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GOSHEN, UTAH
CELLS 3-10 LOCATIONS
03/17/23
5-
1
1"=800'
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW
Feet
0 400 800
CELLS 3-10
EXCAVATION: 10,114,700 CU-YD
NET AIRSPACE: 62,127,600 CU-YD
CELL 3
CELL 4
CELL 5 CELL 7 CELL 9
CELL 6 CELL 8 CELL 10
CELL 1.5
CELL 2
STAGE 4
(FUTURE)
FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION
&
DEMOLITION
AREA
SOIL STOCKPILE/
FUTURE LANDFILL
CELLS
FUTURE
SHOP/OFFICE
AREACELL 2
STAGE 3
LEACHATE
SUMP
CLOSED LANDFILL
(CELL 1)
ACTIVE LANDFILL
(CELL 2 )
GATESCALE
LEACHATE
SUMP
CONSULTANTS:
REVISIONS REVISIONS
MARK MARKDATEBYCHK DATE BY CHK
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 270-9400(801) 270-9401 Fax
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
2023 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GOSHEN, UTAH
MASTER PLAN
03/17/23
6-
1
NTS
1=1
02260-003
1
BM03/17/23
JH03/16/23
-
PLOT DATE:
SHEETDRAWING NO.
DATE:
SCALE
SCALE
APPROVED BY:
PLOT
DWG
REVISION NO:PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:DATE:
DATE:DRAWN BY:
DATE:DESIGNED BY:
COPYRIGHT 2021
N
S
EW

APPENDIX B

BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
BAYVIEW WASATCH TRANS JORDAN
Year Yards Available for MSW
(Decrease 15% for soil use)
Projected
Tonnage 2%
increase
Projected
Tonnage 2%
increase
Projected Tonnage 2%
increase
Airspace Consumed at
(1,500 pounds per yard)Additional Airspace
Jun-21
Cap Cells 1 and 1.5 (Total 2,758,700 cy)2020 415,000 553,333
Actual Useable Airspace = 2,344,895 cy (85% of total)2021 2,344,895 427,732 570,309 Total Cell 1, 1.5, & 2
2022 2,059,740 396,698 528,931
Cell 2 Stage 3 (Total Airspace = 3,879,200 cy)2023 4,828,130 404,632 539,509 3,297,320 Cell 2 Stage 3 Airspace
Actual Useable Airspace = 3,297,320 cy (85% of total)2024 4,288,620 412,725 550,299
Wasatch Integrated Annual Tonnage - 320,000 tons per year 2025 3,738,321 420,979 125,000 727,972
Approximately 115,000 tons per year are transferred to Tekoy 2026 3,010,349 429,399 127,500 742,532
Assume 125,000 tons per year being transferred to Bayview starting in 2025 2027 2,267,817 437,987 130,050 757,382
Cell 2 Stage 4 (Total Airspace = 7,094,550 cy)2028 7,540,802 446,746 132,651 772,530 6,030,367 Cell 2 Stage 4 Airspace
Actual Useable Airspace = 6,030,367 (85% of total)2029 6,768,272 455,681 135,304 787,980
2030 5,980,292 464,795 138,010 803,740
Trans Jordan Landfill Annual Tonnage - 407,000 tons in 2022 2031 5,176,552 474,091 140,770 819,815
415,000 tons in 2021 - slight drop in tonnage. Using 2 % for growth.2032 4,356,737 483,573 143,586 496,131 1,497,719
Trans Jordan will begin to transfer waste to Bayview in 2032.2033 2,859,018 493,244 146,457 506,053 1,527,673
Total Net Airspace Avalable before Cell 3 = 11,672,582 Cubic Yards 2034 9,097,295 503,109 149,387 516,174 1,558,227 7,765,950 Cell 3
From June of 2021 2035 7,539,068 513,171 152,374 526,498 1,589,391
2036 5,949,677 523,435 155,422 537,028 1,621,179
2037 4,328,498 533,903 158,530 547,768 1,653,603
2038 2,674,896 544,581 161,701 558,724 1,686,675
2039 8,754,171 555,473 164,935 569,898 1,720,408 7,765,950 Cell 4
2040 7,033,763 566,582 168,234 581,296 1,754,816
2041 5,278,947 577,914 171,598 592,922 1,789,913
2042 3,489,034 589,472 175,030 604,781 1,825,711
2043 1,663,323 601,262 178,531 616,876 1,862,225
2044 7,567,048 613,287 182,101 629,214 1,899,470 7,765,950 Cell 5
2045 5,667,579 625,553 185,743 641,798 1,937,459
2046 3,730,120 638,064 189,458 654,634 1,976,208
2047 1,753,912 650,825 193,247 667,727 2,015,732
2048 7,504,129 663,842 197,112 681,081 2,056,047 7,765,950 Cell 6
2049 5,448,082 677,118 201,055 694,703 2,097,168
2050 3,350,914 690,661 205,076 708,597 2,139,111
2051 1,211,803 704,474 209,177 722,769 2,181,893
2052 6,795,860 718,564 213,361 737,224 2,225,531 7,765,950 Cell 7
2053 4,570,328 732,935 217,628 751,969 2,270,042
2054 2,300,287 747,593 221,981 767,008 2,315,443
2055 (15,156) 762,545 226,420 782,348 2,361,752
2056 5,389,042 777,796 230,949 797,995 2,408,987 7,765,950 Cell 8
2057 2,980,055 793,352 235,568 813,955 2,457,166
2058 522,889 809,219 240,279 830,234 2,506,310
2059 5,782,529 825,404 245,085 846,839 2,556,436 7,765,950 Cell 9
2060 3,226,093 841,912 249,986 863,776 2,607,565
2061 618,529 858,750 254,986 881,051 2,659,716
2062 6,333,813 875,925 260,086 898,672 2,712,910 8,375,000 Cell 10
2063 3,620,902 893,443 265,287 916,646 2,767,168
2064 853,734 911,312 270,593 934,978 2,822,512
75,563,925
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Leachate Sump
C&D Cell Prep.
2023 Cover
Installation
Construction of
Cell 2 Stage 3 Liner
2024 Cover
Installation
2031 Cover
Installation
Construction of
Cell 2 Stage 4 Liner
Construction of
Cell 3 Liner
Finish Excavation of
Cell 3
2034 Cover
Installation
Finish Excavation of
Cell 2 Stage 4
BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
2025 Cover
Installation
Construct
New Shop/Office
Evaluate Final
Cover Soil Source
New Final Cover
QA/QC Plan
2030 Cover
Installation
Move Site Utilities
2032 Cover
Installation
2033 Cover
Installation
Site Improvements
(Drainage/Fencing)
2026 Cover
Installation
Construction of
Cell 1.5
2021 Landfill Permit
2023 Landfill Permit
SITLA Lease
APPENDIX V – CLOSURE CAP EQUIVALENCY

•
•
•

Closure Cap Equivalency
SUVSWD Bayview Class I Landfill
Permit Application
1 Kl KLEINFELDER
METEORIC WATER INFILTRATION STUDY
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY LANDFILL
(BAYVIEW LANDFILL)
UTAH COUNTY, UTAH
For:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
September 9, 2003
This document was prepared far use only by th« client, only for tht purposes stated, and within « reasonable time from issuance. Non-
commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory' agencies is regarded as .1 "fair use" and not a violation of
copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the
public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and Indicate that permission to reprint has been received.
HDR/26515.001,'SLC3R082 Page i of iii September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
}
IJf) KLEINFELDER
A Report Prepared For:
JVIr. Dick Sprague
HDR Engineering, Inc.
303 East ] 7'*' Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80203-1256
METEORIC WATER INFILTRATION STUDY
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY LANDFILL
(BAYVIEW LANDFILL)
UTAH COUNTY, UTAH
File No.; 26515.00]
Prepared By:
(g.0^ ^
Brian]. Peck,R.G.
Hydrogeologist
lee Zollinger, P.G
Senior Geologist
KLELNFELDER, INC.
849 West LeVoy Drive, Suite 200
Taylorsville, UT 84123
[phone]
September 9, 2003
HDR;265I5.001/SLC3R082 Page ii of iii Scpiember 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
1
o
1^ KLEINFELDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. LNTRODUCTION 1
2. MODEL CODE SELECTION 2
3. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ...1 4
4. SOIL HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES 5
4.1 Properties ofthe In-Place Cap 5
4.2 Properties ofthe Prescriptive Cap 6
5. HYDRUS-2D MODEL DESIGN 7
6. HYDRUS-2D INFILTRATION SIMULATIONS 9
6.1 Average Climatic Conditions 9
6.2 Wettest (Worst-Case) Climatic Conditions 10
7. CONCLUSIONS II
8. LIMITATIONS ...12
9. REFERENCES 13
TABLES
1 Average Precipitation and Five Wettest Years on Record, Elberta, Utah
2 Unsaturated Hydraulic Parameters for Bayview Landflll Samples
3 General Unsaturated Hydraulic Parameters from Literature
4 Summary of Hydraulic Properties used for Prescriptive Cap Simulations
5 Summary of Model ResuUs
FIGURES
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Soil Sample Location Map
APPENDICES
A Laboratory Report
B Site Specific Frost Depth Calculations
C Source Material Investigation Letter and Grain Size Distribution Figure
D Application for Authorization to Use
HDRy26515.001/SLC3R082 Page iii of iii September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
1^ KLEINFELDER
1. INTRODUCTION
Bayview Landfill, also called the South Utah Valley Landfill, is located approximately 5 miles
north of Elberta, Utah, along State Road 68 (Figure 1). This landfill is a Class 1 municipal solid
waste landfill and began accepting solid waste in 1990. Cell 1 is scheduled for closure during the
next year, and the South Utah Valley Solid Waste District wishes to consider modifying their
permit to include closure with an evaporative cap. Recent studies have shown that appropriate
evajX)rative caps out-perform standard clay caps in arid environments because they are less prone
to desiccation, cracking, and frost damage when compared to traditional thin clay caps. South
Utah Valley Solid Waste District would like to take advantage of long-term benefits offered by this
type of altemative cap.
The following report describes our assessment of expected long-term meteoric water infiltration or
seepage rates through an evaporative cap at Bayview Landfill constructed fi^om on-site soils.
Infiltration is defined as precipitation minus surface run-off, evaporation and plant transpiration.
The net infiltration rate multiplied by the clay cap area is the net seepage volume that may
contribute to foimation of leachate. Expected infiltration rates were established by using the
HYDRUS-2D saturated'unsaturated flow model (Version 2.0; Simunek and van Genuchten,
1999). Infiltration rates \vere determined for the standard regulatory prescribed cap and for the
proposed site-specific cap materials. The prescriptive cap simulation was constructed using clay
and silty clay materials, expected to have the lowest permeabilities. Infiltration processes are
rarely saturated, however. Unsaturated soil hydraulic properties are highly non-Jinear functions of
the pressure head (pressure head is also termed 'matric potential' and 'capillary sucfion'). Soil
moisture or saturation and hydraulic conductivity are both a function of pressure head. These three
variables interact fo control the movement of soil moisture in the vadose or unsaturated zone. To
simulate the behavior of a hypothetical prescripfive cap under the climatic conditions at the
Bayview Landfill, a bracketing range of unsaturated soil parameters were selected. The resulfing
prescriptive cap infiltration rates are then compared to the infiltration rates modeled for the actual
on-site materials.
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082 Page lof 14 September 9,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
i KH KLEINFELDER
2. MODEL CODE SELECTION
The U.S. Salinity Laboratory's HYDRUS-2D unsaturated flow code was used to predict
infiltration through the Bayview Landfill's proposed evaporative cap. This model is a windows
based platform for running the public domain SWTVlS_2D finite element code published by
Simunek, Vogel and van Genuchten (1992, 1994).
This model code was chosen because it incorporates the Richard's equations for groundwater flow
under conditions of partial saturation and can simulate hydraulic gradients.and movement based on
soil moisture retention characteristics. The code is widely used in arid regions research. A key
factor of concem in arid environments is the upward capillary movement of water towards the
drying atmospheric interface caused by soil suction or matric potential under changing conditions
of surface soil moisture resulting from infrequent light precipitation events and the intervening
relatively long duration desiccation periods. The EPA HELP3 model code developed for
evaluation of infiltration into and leakage from landfills (Schroeder et al, 1994) only accounts for
gravity drainage of rainfall and is therefore more appropriate for sites in the eastem U.S. where
rainfall rates are much higher. In arid climates the HELP model tends to overestimate infiltration
rates because it does not account for upward movement of soil moisture toward the land surface
during drying inter\^als (Albright, 1997; Hart and Lassetter, 1999).
The H YDRUS-2D model reacts to heavy precipitation events by limiting surface infiltration to the
maximum infiltration capacity of soil based on the unsaturated flow equations; precipitation
amounts greater than this maximum rate are assumed to form runoff. The primary water budget
processes that determine net infiltration rates occur in near surface materials that are transected by
the evapotranspiration zone; the type and thickness of strata below the evapotranspiration depth do
not significantly influence percolation rates if they are more transmissive than the near surface
materials. The HELP model requires that the evapotranspiration depth be specified a priori. The.
HYDRUS-2D model handles evaporation by using maximum potential evaporation at the soil
surface. The evaporation depth is implicitly computed by HyDRUS-2D during runtime according
IrLDR/26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 2 of 14 September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inz.
1^ KLEINFELDER
to the unsaturated flow equation. The user specifies the potential maximum evaporation rate and
the simulation code computes movement of water based on saturated and'or unsaturated hydraulic
gradients that depend on antecedent moisture conditions.
HDR/265I5.001/SLC3R082 Page 3 of 14 September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
i UPI KLEINFELDER
CLIM.VTIC CONDITIONS
The HYDRUS-2D model requires specification of daily rainfall and potential evaporation to
simulate net infiltration. To obtain worst-case infiltration resuUs, plant cover was excluded from
all models prepared for this report, so potential transpiration was not quantified. It is assumed that
the addition of plants will reduce infiltration approximately equally for each cap modeled.
Potential evaporation at the Bayview Landfill site is a function of wind speed, relative humidity,
temperature, precipitation, and insolation (solar energy). Daily precipitation and potential
evapotranspiration values were obtained for the Elberta, Utah, weather station site from the Utah
Cfimate Center, University of Utah.
1^
L_-
The Utah Climate Center database precipitation values for the Elberta station have an annual
average of 10.54 inches for the period of record (1928-1990), Monthly average precipitation
amounts for Elberta are shown in Table 1.
For modeling a worst case scenario, the DSHW suggested running the five wettest years on record
in sequence. Tlie five wettest years in Elberta were 1983, 1982, 1941, 1967, and 1946, with
precipitettion rales of 19.34, 17.42, 14.28, 14.04, and 13.84 inches for these years, respectively.
Monthly values for each of these years are shown in Table 1.
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082
Copyrighl 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 4 of 14 September 9, 2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
SOIL HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
Partial saturation or unsaturated flow hydraulic properties include the effective porosity, the
saturated and residual water capacity, the saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the matric potential
versus water content curve that is summarized by the van Genuchten soil moisture retention
parameters. Effective porosity is the maximum amount of water that fully saturated soil can store.
Matric potential is the physical property of a porous medium to attract water as a result of capillary
and adsorption processes. The residual capacity of a soil is the virtually irreduci'ble amount of
water in soil tliat has been exposed to desiccating conditions for a long period of time; it is defined
as having a matric potential of-15 bar, which is a pressure of about -153 meters of water. The
negative pressure is a convention for describing conditions of partial saturation; the pressure is
equal to the absolute hydraulic pressure required to drive the water firom a sample. The van
Genuchten parameters describe the shape ofthe soil matric potential (capillary suction) curve as a
function of volumetric soil moisture. From this is derived (he hydraulic conductivity versus soil
moisture curve using the equations of Mualem (1976).
4.1 PROPERTIES OF THE IN-PLACE CAP
Unsaturated hydraulic analyses were conducted on samples of potential cap materials collected
fi"om the Bayview Landfill site. Four soil samples were collected from representative locations on
February 18, 2003. These samples were selected based on the range of observed soil types at the
Landfill. The soil satnple locations are shown ou Figure 2, The samples are described as follows:
Sample ID
BVLF-l
BVLF-2
BVLF-3
BVLF-4
Location :
Soil berm
Soil stockpile
Soil stockpile
In-situ bonom of
cell 2
•JT, Soil Description ..,
Red-yellow sandy silt (SM)
Olive-brown silty sand (SM)
Olive-brown silty sand (SM)
Red-brown silty sand (SP-
SM) referred to as "mud
stone" or "hardpan"
• - Genei'ial GdiripactioD '
Uncompacted
Somewhat compacted by
equipment during placement
Somewhat compacted by
equipment during placement
In-situ compaction
HDR'26515.00]/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 5 of 14 September 9, 2003
i
4
lfl KLEINFELDER
The saturated hydraulic conductivity for the four samples ranges from 1.3 x 10"' to 3.8 x 10"*
cm'sec, with the hydrauhc conductivity of the olive-brown silty sand (BVL F-2 and -3) ranging
fi-om 1.3 X 10'^ to 3.8 X 10"^. Other parameters are summarized in Table 2. The laboratory report is
included in Appendix A.
4.2 PROPERTIES OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE CAP
Unsaturated flow parameters • were estimated for the regulatory prescriptive cap assuming the
prescriptive cap would be a clay material (see Table 3). Uncertainty regarding exactiy which soil
texture best approximates the low-permeability portion of the prescriptive cap material led to an
approach involving three soil types which bracket the low-permeability portion of the most
probable analogue. Three soil types were chosen that exhibited the lowest saturated hydraulic
conductivities; these are silty clay, silty clay loam and sandy clay. The hydraulic parameters for
these soils range fi-om 5.6x10"^ to 3,3x10' . The low-permeability layer was then covered with a
28-inch sandy loam topsoil to protect the low permeability layer from fi-ost damage. Site specific
fi-ost depth infotmation is presented in Appendi.x B. Soil textures used for modeling are shown in
Table 4.
The Solid Waste Rules also specify that the permeability ofthe prescriptive caps be lower than the
permeability ofthe bottom liner. The bottom liner for Cell 1 consists of an HDPE synthetic liner
placed on underlying native soil (a sandy silt lo silty sand). The effective permeability ofthis liner
system was calculated using equations developed by J J. Giroud and R. Bonaparte, 1989- To be
conservative, we assumed tliat the soil under the HDPE liner is a coarse sand, the liner makes good
contact with the underiying soil, and that the installation quality was good to excellent (one small,
circular hole per acre). We also assumed that up to 1 foot of leachate could be standing on the
liner, creating a vertical head. These assumptions were input into Giroud and Bonaparte's
equations, and the resulting predicted liner leakage rate is 470 gal/acre/day, or approximately 16
cm/year.
HDRy26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 6 of 14 September 9, 2003
Cop>Tight 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
,)
Ifl KLEINFELDER
HYDRUS-2D MODEL DESIGN
The HYDRUS-2D finite element model was discretized in the manner of a soil column test, with
one-dimensional flow from the atmospheric boundary- condition at the top ofthe column to a fi-ee-
drainage boundary at the bottom of the column. The height ofthe column was specified to be 215
cm using 50 rows and variable cell sizes from 0.5 to 5 cm. Row height was specified to be 0.5 cm
at land surface, at the seepage face, and at each side of a soil texture interface. The uppermost
boundary was specified to be an atmospheric boundary with daily time-variable records for rainfall
and evaporation potential. Water leaves the model system by gravity drainage fi-om the fi-ee
drainage boundary when it is fully saturated. The amount of water draining from the drainage
boundary was used to quantify the net amount of water infiltrating into die landfill waste.
The model for the prescriptive cap was designed to include a 71 cm (28 inch) thick topsoil layer at
the surface, underlain by 45 cm (18 inches) of clay cap material, with the base of the model domain
) consisting of 94 cm (37.5 inches) of sand to simulate the landfill waste material. A summary ofthe
materials used in the prescriptive cap simulations is shown in Table 5.
The model for the actual cap was designed to include a 5 cm (2 inch) tliick topsoil layer consistent
with normal surface disturbance, underlain by 81 cm (32 inches) of cap material, with the base of
the model consisting of 130 cm (51 inches) of the sand/waste layer. The thickness of the
evaporative cap was selected after running several models of various thicknesses to better
understand the balance between promoting maximum evaporation (by using of a thinner cap to
maintain moisture close to the evaporative surface) and providing sufficient storage for
precipitation (by using of a thicker cap that doesn't become saturated and allow breakthrough.)
The initial soil moisture pressure, an important variable influencing short term seepage rates, was
specified to be in equilibrium throughout the soil column with a -50 cm matric potential specified
at the base of the model domain for all model runs. This pressure is slightly dryer than the
subsequent dynamic equilibrium moisture at the base ofthe model. Net infiltration of rainfall at
the land surface during the five wettest year sequence is more accurately quantified by having the
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 7 of 14 September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Ifl KLEINFELDER
water content at near-equilibrium levels at the base of the soil column. Model predictions of
infilti-ation rates are sensitive to the initial soil moisture values, but the long-term dynamic
equilibrium infiltration rates are not affected by antecedent soil moisture.
Transpiration was not included in the model due to the relatively small percentage that it
constitutes relative to evaporation potential and the fact that parameters for soil moisture uptake
rates for desert shrabs and grasses are poorly documented. One study reports plant transpiration as
contributing three percent ofthe total evapotranspiration potential in Jean, Nevada, and 32 percent
for good grass cover on a landfill in Elko, Nevada (Albright, 1997). Excluding plant transpiration
is a conservative choice that tends to increase the predicted net infiltration rates. Similar plant
growth is e.\pected on both prescriptive and proposed evaporative caps, so making a comparison
between performance of these caps should not be significantly affected by the presence or absence
of vegetation.
HDRy26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 8 of 14 September 9,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Ifl KLEINFELDER
HYDRUS-2D INFILTRATION SIMULATIONS
Three prescriptive cap design scenarios were evaluated based upon different soil textures for the
18-inch thick clay cap material. Four actual cap scenarios were evaluated based on measured soil
properties. The models were run both for average climatic conditions, and for the five wettest
years in sequence (beginning at equilibrium with the average years). Infiltration rates were
calculated for both average conditions and each ofthe five wettest years.
6.1 AVERAGE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Under average (normal) climatic conditions observed in nearby Elberta, Utah, the prescriptive
caps allow an average of 4.14 to 4.65 cm of infiltration to occur each year. Under the same
climatic conditions, evaporative caps constructed of the four potential soils assessed for use at
Bayview Landfill allow 2.63 to 6.55 cm of infiltration to occur each year. The olive-brown silty
sand material that has been stockpiled at the site (samples BVLFl and BVLF2) is expected to
allow infiltration rates of 2.63 to 4.12 cm/year. These results are shown on Table 5. A graph
depicting these results is shown below.
infiltration for Average Rainfall
.«>^ .ri>^ ..!.«•
^.-^ ^.-'
.\ .1. .'b ^6.
<^^ t,^^ <^^ ^^"
Type of Cap
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 9 of 14 September 9,2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
6.2 WETTEST (WORST-CASE) CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Under an assumed worst-case climatic condition where the five wettest years on record at
Elberta, Utah were to occur sequentially, the three modeled prescriptive caps would allow
infiltration at rales ranging from 6.49 to 18.12 cm/year. Under the same climatic conditions,
evaporative caps constructed of the four potential soils assessed for use at Bayview Landfill
allow 3.63 to 20 cm of infiltration per year. The olive-brown silty sand material that has been
stockpiled at the site is associated with infiltration rates of 3.63 to 12.17 cm/year. These results
are shown on Table 5. A graph depicting these results is shown below.
Infiltration for Wettest Years
Prescrip 1
Prescrip 2
Prescrip 3
BVLF1
BVLF2
BVLF3
BVLF4
^'^ ^- .vO"' o.e. ,4^ ^^ ^^ ^# ^^^ ^^^
v^^ >^* ^"^ >^*^ ^'^
^C^^ r^^ ^ <^
Type of Year
HDR/'26515,001/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 10 of 14 September 9, 2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
CONCLUSIONS
Based on unsaturated flow modeling, it appears that a 34-inch evaporative cap, constructed from
the olive-brown silty sand material available at Bayview Landfill, will perform as well or better
than the hypothetical prescriptive cap under the arid conditions that exist in the area. The
proposed evaporative cap performed as well as the prescriptive cap during both the worst case
"wet" years, and during normal (dry) years. Both the prescriptive cap and the proposed
evaporative cap have much lower predicted infiltration rates (less than 7 cm/year) than the
leakage rate ofthe bottom liner (16 cm/year). Therefore, both caps satisfy the requirement ofthe
Solid Waste Rules that the cap be no more permeable than the liner.
To provide a more detailed description ofthe proposed capping material and provide quantitative
criteria for identifying these materials in the field, Kleinfelder perfonned a source material
investigation in May 2003 (Kleinfelder 2003). A summary of criteria that may be used to
identify suitable material (materials that are represented by BVLF-2 and BVF-3) is included in
Appendix C.
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 11 of 14 Scpiember 9,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
i Ifl KLEINFELDER
8. LIMITATIONS
The unsaturated groundwater model described in this report was used to predict infiltration rates
based upon estimates of the regulatory prescriptive cap unsaturated hydraulic parameters and
laboratory analyses of the on-site materials. The accuracy of infiltration rate estimates resulting
from numerical models is entirely dependant upon the validity of the hydraulic parameters used
to construct the model. The simulated infiltration rates are sensitive to the unsaturated flow
parameters. These and other subsurface hydraulic parameters generally exhibit spatial
heterogeneity. Therefore, simulated infiltration rates are considered to be best estimates and not
precise predictions of actual field infiltration rates. No on-site hydraulic testing was performed
for this project by Kleinfelder, Jnc. Field tests are available which would reduce the level of
uncertainty associated with estimating subsurface hydraulic properties.
This study was performed and findings obtained in substantial conformance with the engineering
practice that exists within the area at the time of our investigation and includes professional
opinions and judgements. We base this report on information derived fi:om data in available
literature and our knowledge of and experience in the local area. This report does not provide a
warranty as to variable subsurface conditions which may exist and applies only to the specific
area that was investigated. In addition, one should recognize that definition and evaluation of
subsurface geologic and hydrogeologic conditions is a difficult and inexact art. Geologists and
hydrogeologists must occasionally make general judgements leading to conclusions with
incomplete knowledge of the geologic history, subsurface conditions and hydraulic
characteristics present. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 12 of 14 September 9,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Ifl KLEINFELDER
9. REFERENCES
Albright, William, 1997, Application of the HYDRUS-2D Model to Landfill Cover Design in the
State of Nevada, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, Publication No.
41153, prepared for Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Branch, Bureau of Waste Management, January,
1997,18 p.
Carsel, R.F., and Parrish, R.S., 198S, Developing Joint Probability Distributions of Soil-Water
Retention Characteristics, Water Resources Research, 24 (5), pp. 755-769.
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates. Inc., 2003, laboratory analysis sheets for Bayview Landfill soil
samples including: Predicted Water Retention Curves (Pressure Head vs. Moisture
Content), Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Moisture Content, Relative Hydraulic
Conductivity vs. Pressure Head, Moisture Retention Data (Hanging Column/Pressure
Plate/Thennocouple'Relative Humidity Box), Particle Size Characteristics, Particle Size
Analyses (Dry Sieve, Wet Sieve and Hydrometer), Satijrated Hydraulic Conductivity Tests,
Atterburg Tests, Initial Moistiare Content, Dry Bulk Density, Wet Bulk Density, Calculated
Porosity, and Percent Saturation.
EPA, ]990, A Subtitle D Landfill Application Manual for the Multimedia Exposure Assessment
Model (MultiMed), by Susan Sharp-Hansen, Constance Travers, Paul Hummel, AQUA
TERRA Consultants, Mountain View, Califomia, and Terry Allison, Computer Sciences
Corporation, Athens Georgia, August, 1990; EPA Contract 68-03-3513, Project Monitor
Gerard Laniak.
Giroud, J.P. and R. Bonaparte, 1989. "Leakage Through Liners Constructed with Geomembranes,
Part I," Geomembrane Liners, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 8,1:27-67.
Hart, B., and Lassetter, W., 1999, Numerical Modeling of Heap Leach, Tailings and Waste Rock
Facility Cover Alternatives, In Closure. Remediation & Management of Precious Metals
Heap Leach Facilities, edited by D. Kosich and G, Miller, Center for Environmental
Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno.
Kleinfelder, 2003. Source Material Investigation, Soutii Utah Valley Landfill (Bayview Landfill),
July 10,2003, File No, 30268,001.
Mualem, Y., 1976, A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous
media. Water Resources Research, 12(3), 513-522.
Schroeder, P.R., Dozier, T.S.. Zappi, PA., McEnroe, B.M., Sjostrom, J.W., and Peyton, R.L.,
1994, The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model,
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, with the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
HDR;26515.00I/SLC3R082 Page 13 of 14 September 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Ifl KLEINFELDER
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincirmati,
Ohio, EPA/'600/R-94/168b
Simunek, J.T. Vogel, T. and van Genuchten, M.T., 1992, The SWMS2D code for simulating
•water flow and solute transport in V,vo-dimensional variably saturated media. Version
l.J; Research Report No, 126, U,S. Salinity Laboratory, U.S, Department of Agriculture,
Agriculture Research Station, Riverside, Califomia.
Simunek. J.T. Vogel, T. and van Genuchten, M.T, 1994, The SWMS_2D code for simulating
water flow and solute transport in two-dimensional variably saturated media. Version
Ll; Research Report No. 136, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agriculture Research Station, Riverside, Califomia.
Simunek, J.T., and van Genuchten, M.T., 1999, The HYDRUS-2D software package for
simulating water flow and solute transport in tv^o-dimensional variably saturated media.
Version 2.0, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Research Station, Riverside, Califomia.
van Genuchten, M.T, 1980, A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils, Soil Science Society of America Journal 44:892-898.
HDR;26515.001/SLC3R082 Page 14 of 14 September 9. 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Ifl KLEINFELDER
T.ABLE 1
Average Precipitation and Five Wettest Years on Record (inches)
Elberta, Utah
xMonth
Jan
• Feb
. Mar
Apr
May
Jun
. Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct.;:
••••Nov'.'/-
Dec:
Sum: ,.
Average .
.81
.84
.99
1.03
1.03
0.73
0.8
0.94
0.72
1.01
0.86
0.81
10.54
/. ;Preclpitatiott(iiich«) i'ciivsfl
.1983
1.24
2.00
2.30
1.32
1,67
0.89
0.82
2.11
1.76
0.57
2.69
1.97
19.34
1982 ;;:
1.12
0.33
1.12
0.41
1.66
0.57
3-67
0.38
5.30
1.46
0.73
0.67
17.42
••''- -Mikm
0.53
1.42
1.66
1.25
0.64
1.75
1.07
0.85
0.54
2.71
0.46
1.40
14.28
^m&^^^:$:
|^^967'^'lv^
3.89
0.23
0.74
0.88
2.52
2.44
2,04
0,15
0.58
0.39
0,94
1,24
14.04
i'S^c^-::r/::B^^:i
Wi:i^^^'''^}-
1,04
0.11
0.88
1.46
1.68
0
0.72
1.27
0
3,96
1.84
0.88
13.84
Date from Utviversiiy of Ulah, Utah Climate Center, Elberta Station
Period ofRecord (1/1/1928 to 12/31/90)
Station: Elberta, Utah
HDR/265I5.OO1/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
September 9, 2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
TABLE 2
Unsaturated Hydraulic Parameters for Bayview LandfiU Samples
Sample-
Name.
BVLF-1
BVLF-2
BVLF-3^
BVLF-4
, -Sample ..
Description
Sandy Silt (MH)
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
'- "'-:'-^'^W^'^^
Otiier-:^:?;
Red yellow
Olive brown
Olive brown
Red to brown
^•ia5i:e(Sntent^'^^--i-
iSaituration
0,6671
0.4035
0.3846
0.5395
'-•': •:-••*! . ;"„.', ^-
Residuial
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.020
. .Satiiratei*;.
: .Hydraulic
Gbndifctivity
(cm/sec): •
4.1 xlO'^
3,8x10"*
1.3x10-^
1.3 xlO-^
—; CakiidatedV:.:
van Genuchtea.
^rparamet;ersV.^
Alpha
(i/cm)
0.0051
0.0062
0.0071
0.0470
• •n,:''
1.35
1.30
1.27
1.36
Note; These values reported by Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, Inc.
TABLE 3
General Unsaturated Hydraulic Parameters from Literature
^^^^'sliStw;:-/;••.:
:\;i-|«;Loamj; saiid ..•..• -.
*aTS«^#i<f^Ht:\-- :•.•• ; r^Sj'.TfSandy loam--
pSiia^giy-Mmv--^
W^^M>fmi
'^'.•,.»-..'/^!f-,-;':*irX-V''» ;'••' •-'." •
=:.^^^ii§iS^'i.>:;.'
^^-^Ifei^ibam;-.^::"
s^i^tcW:^:
V--'•.=i-'W-3-.'v-.;'i--.--.--- -...-. •
;i;jSiIty;(EIay;Lpam
'''WM^:^''':'
•'•""^-•sSty^iay-.--
Satui^atibh
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.39
0.43
036
0.45
0.41
0.46
0.43
0.38
036
0.045
0.057
0.065
0.100
0.078
0.070
0.067
0.095
0.034
0.089
0.068
0.070
•liSiSaturated 7\
iliyaraiii^^:^
5JS{cm/sec>;X;
83 xlO'^
4.1 xlO-'
1.2x10'^
3.6x10^
2.9x10"*
33x10-^
13x10""
•7.2x10-^
6.9x10-^
1.9x10"^
5.6x10-^
5.6x10"*^
; : '..van Genuchten ,.
'•t-r-\ /V^rvv parametersift^^^i^-^-
?."::;>;Aipfia?:;#:.
0.145
0.124
0.075
0.059
0.036
0.027
0.020
0,019
0.016
0.010
0.008
0.005
i3'."jCri;:;?/.'l'.:-'-: ."7.' .:"-''•-.
•-^;'^r-•.-i•iV.':•-••;•a;- • '•
2,68
2.28
1,89
1,48
1.56
1.23
1.41
131
137
1-23
1.09
1.09
Mote: Source: Carsel and Parrish (1988)
Values are averages of hundreds of samples for each soil type.
HDR/26S15.001/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
September 9,2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
TABLE 4
Summary of Hydraulic Properties used for Prescriptive Cap Simulations
^\p;teg,CpiiteiatSS51
safiiratioii Resiaiial
#Saitiiraite®i 4>yait.GenucB.tett:c'
g^paraiingters>^g
Topsoil 0,41 0.065 1.2x10" 0.075 1.89
ClayCap(l) 0.36 0.070 5.6x10'' 0.005 1.09
Clay Cap(2) 0.43 0,089 1.9x10 5 0,010 1,23
Clay Cap(3) 0.36 0.070 33 xlO"-0.027 1.23
Fill material 0.43 0.045 83x10" 0,145 2-68
HDR/26515.001/SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
September 9, 2003
Ifl KLEINFELDER
TABLE 5
Summary of Model Results
Scieiaairio
rAimuatlnfilti-aitfon. Rate; foc
r^?.; ^^iSw^ft!esii^ar5f^*K^^^
^?j:fem/year)fj\t;(IMches/yeaF)j^
"Average-Annual Jnfiltr^tioiii
^ijRate for 5,normaEyeary.«5:
^H' (cm/yeary'^'^;(incl i^t^^
Prescriptive Caps
Presc-1
Sandy Loam (28")
Silty Clay cap (18")
Sand'* (37,5")
6.49
to
13.85
2.56
to
5.45
4,14 1,63
Presc -2
Sandy Loam (28")
Silty Clay Loam cap (18")
Sand* (37.5")
6.84
to
18.12
2,69
to
7,13
4.65 1.83
Presc -3
Sandy Loam (28")
Sandy Clay cap (18")
Sand* (37,5")
7.22
to
17,78
2.84
to
7,00
4.53 1.78
Evaporative Cap
BV-1
Sandy Loam (2")
Sample Tl-D (32")
Sand* (51")
9.9
to
19.65
3-9
to
7.74
6.55 2.58
BV-2
Sandy Loam (2")
Sample T2-Da (32")
Sand* (51")
3.63
to
7.07
1.43
to
2.78
2.63 1.04
BV-3
Sandy Loam (2")
Sample T2-Db (32")
Sand* (51")
6.23
to
12.17
2.45
to
4.79
4.12 1.62
BV^
Sandy Loam (2")
Sample T5-D (32")
Sand*(51")
8.78
to
19.99
3.46
to
7.S7
5.88 231
* "Sand" layer simulates the porous waste materials in the landfill.
HDRy26515.001 /SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
September 9,2003
f0091r-
'W.
%r-
..'l^;'^.;, ''i/'lf
Vt,.- I
-v/"
^'-OOJl
'^• '\.
CMo
^ CM
I
^1--
l--\
•'~(J-*- L' II
^It-' 4;
,> ^:::-ov >.r "^—•-, A
""'"•» •^''i'--
1!=,-*
H
•I' ,
II
" J-
J •1
8
z
Q
\-
UJ
Ul
UL
o
CM Ul
o
o o
173
UJ _)
< z
9 UJ fe
z [r o>
UJ z Q
ri ^ UJ
-J !5 OT .. S m > < z . tr
S UJ to o
UJ 5 CD t
CD O D Q.
a.
(N
O
o
n a
Ul
Q:
D
o
o
o
= Z
ro =
0.
<
z o
< u o
Ol
t
D>
.c -S S >>
-' X nf ,
j= o -C-
O Q-S c
Q:
LU
Q
_l
LU
U-
UJ
S
3 Z
LEGEND
BVLF-3 8) Appraxlmale Soil Sample Location
0 25Cr 500-
Approximate Scale: r = 600'
KLEINFELDER
Projod Number 26515.001
SLC3dl55.(lwg
Bayview Meteoric Infiltration Study
Approximately 5.6 Miles North of Elberta
Elberta. Utah
SOIL SAIVIPLE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
2
March 13,2003
Ms. Renee ZoUjnger
Kleinfelder
2677 East Parley's Way
Salt Lake Citj-, UT 84109-1617
[phone]
;i
'"V
Dear Ms. Zollinger:
Enclosed is the final report for the Kleinfelder (Bayview LF) job #26515.001. Please review this
report and provide any coranients as samples will be held for a maximum of 30 days. After 30
days samples will be retumed or disposed of in an appropriate manner.
All testing results were evaluated subjectively for cottsistency and reasonableness, and the results
appear to be reasonably representative ofthe material tested. However, DBS&A does not
assume any responsibility fox interpretations or analyses based on the data enclosed, nor can we
guarantee that these data are fully representative of the undisturbed materials at tlie field site. We
recommend that careful evaluation of these laboratory results be made for your particular
application.
We are pleased to provide this ser\-ice to Kleinfelder and look forward to future laboratory
testing on other projects. If you have any questions about the enclosed data, please do nol
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
DANIEL B. STEPHENS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jaiiiel O'Dowd
Enclosure
L.\L.^I'W;il)l nu.l.'; oc Llcinlcl.lcr.IJi.'vic.i LRCnvci Lcllenloc
Daniel B. Stephens <t Asiocialcs, Inc.
602O Academy NE, Suit* 100 505-82J-9400
Alhiiquerc)ue. NM 87109 FAX 50S-822-8B77
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Summary of Tests Performed
Laboratory
Sample Number
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUM
Initial Sol)
Properties'
(0, Pd. *)
X
X
X
X
Saturated
Hydraulic
Conductivity^
CH
X
X
X
X
FH
|i.<oisture
Characteristics'"
HC
X
^
X
X
PP
X
X
X
X
TH WP
X
X
X
X
RH
X
X
X
X
Unaaturaled
Hydraulic
Conductivity
X
X
X
X
Particle
Size'
DS WS _H
Effective
Porosity
Particle
Density
Air
Pemieability
1/3, 15 Bar
Poinls and
Water Holding
Capacity
Atterberg
Limits
Proctor
Compaction
' 6 =
^ CH
' HC
' DS
ln(tial moisture content, pd = Dry tjulk density, ^ = Calculated pofosity
= Constant head, FH = falling head
= Hanging colurno, PP = Pressure plale, TH = Thermocouple psychromeler, WP = Water activity meter, RH "= Relative humidity box
= Dry sieve, WS = Wet sieve, H = Hydrometer
D an iel B. Slcpliens £ A ssociatcs , Inc.
Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
Sampie Number
Ksat
(cm/sec)
4.1 E-05
3.8E-06
1.3E-05
1.3E-03
Method of Analysis
Constant Head Falling Head
X
X
X
X
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUF-4
"1
D an ie I B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Summary of Initial ^Aoistur& Content, Dry Buik Density
Wet Bulk Density and Calculated Porosity
Initial Moisture Content Dry Bulk Wet Bulk Calculated
Sample Number
Gravimetric
(%. g/g)
35.0
18.6
13.4
17.1
Volumetric
(%, cm'/cm^)
29.3
27.2
21.2
21.7
Density
(g/cm^)
. 0.84
1.46
1.58
1.27
Density
(g/cm")
1.13
1.74
1.79
1.49
Porosit
(%)
68.4
44.7
40.4
52.0
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUF-4
Daniel B. Stephens &. Associates, Inc.
' )
Summary of Moisture Characteristics
of the Initial Drainage Curve
Sampie Number
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
LJ BLUF^
Pressure Head
(-cm water)
0
21
49
150
510
16623
851293
0
21
49
150
510
7445
851293
0
21
49
"150
510
17541
851293
0
10
43
80
510
9892
851293
Moisture Conte
(%, cm^/cm^)
66.9
65.6
63.4
60.4
43.4
15.3
2.5
40.1
39.6
38.0
37.3
25.2
14.1
2.7
38.2
37.8
36.3
34.4
24.6
11.7
2.5
54.6
48.3
41.7
30.8
18.5
8.1
2.9
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Summary of Calculated Unsaturated Hydraulic Properties
Sample Number
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUF^
a (cm"')
0.0051
0.0062
0.0071
0.0470
N (dimensionless)
1.3508
1.2957
1.2714
1.3613
e,
o'.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0200
e.
0.6671
0.4035
0.3&46
0.5395
'1
1
i.J
o
Raw Laboratory Data
) and Graphical Plots
i
i f
: )
Daniel B. Stephetts & Associates, Inc.
Summary of Initial Moisture Content, Dry Bulk Density
Wet Bulk Density and Calculated Porosity
Initial Moisture Content Dry Bulk Wet Bulk Calculated
''
'•
-''"-
.t
Sample Number
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
• BLUF^
Gravimetric
(%. g/g)
35.0
18.6
13.4
17.1
Volumetric
(% cm^/cm^)
29.3
27.2
21.2
21.7
Density
(g/cm^)
0.84
1.46
1.58
1.27
Density
(g/cm^)
1.13
1.74
1.79
1-49
Porosity
(%)
68.4
44.7
40.4
52.0
Daniel B . Sie p h efts & A si o ci at cs, Jnc.
Data for Initial Moisture Content,
Bulk Density, Porosity, and Percent Saturation
•^i
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number. WR03.0035.00
Sample Number. BLUF-1
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Test Date: 2-Feb-03
Field weight* of sample (g).- 98.15
Tare weight, ring (g).' 36.57
Tare weight, cap/plate/epoxy (g); 0.00
Dry weight of sampie (g).' 45.63
Sampfe volume {err?): 54.44
Assumed particle density: 2.65
Initial Volumetric Moisture Content (% vol): 29.3
Initial Gravimetric Moisture Content (% g/g); 35.0
Dry bulk density (glcrr?): 0.84
Wet bulk density (QICVT?): 1.13
Calculated Porosity (% vol): 68.4
Percent Saturation: 42.9
Comments:
* WeigUt including tares
Laboratory analysis by: Wl. Devine
Data entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
f '
il
TT
n'
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Data for Initial Moisture Content,
Bulk Density, Porosity, and Percent Saturation
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number. WR03.0035.00
Sample Number: BLUF-2
Ring Number. NA
• Depth: NA
Test Date: 2-Feb-03
Field weight* of sample (g): 122.60
Tare weight, ring (g): 34.07
Tare weight, cap/p/afe/epoxy (g): 0.00
Dry weight of sample (g): 74.67
Sample volume (cm^): 50.99
Assumed particle density: 2.65
o Initial Volumetric Moisture Content (% vol): 27.2
Initial Gravimetric Moisture Content (% g/g): 18.6
Dry bulk density {g/cm^; 1.46
Wet bulk density (g/cm^): 1.74
Calculated Porosity (% vol): 44.7
Percent Saturation: 60.8
Comments:
' Weight including tares
I 4
Laboratory analysis by: M. Devine
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Data for Initial Moisture Content,
Bulk Density, Porosity, and Percent Saturation
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number. WR03.0035.D0
Sample Numben BLUF-3
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Test Date: 2-Feb-03
Field weight* of sample (g).
Tare weight, ring (g)
Tare weight, cap/piate/epoxy (g)
156.11
41.93
O.OO
Dry weight of sample (g): 100.70
Sample volume (cm^): 63.72
Assumed particle density: 2.65
Initial Volumetric Moisture Content {% vol): 21.2
Initial Gravimetric Moisture Content {% g/g): 13.4
Dry bulk density (g/cm^): 1.58
Wet bulk density (g/cm^: 1.79
Calculated Porosity (% vol): 40.4
Percent Saturation: 52.4
Comments:
* Weight including tares
Laboratory anaJysis by: Wl. Devine
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Data for Initial Moisture Content,
Bulk Density, Porosity, and Percent Saturation
;i
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035,00
Sample Number BLUF-4
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Test Date: 2-Feb-03
Field weight' of sample (g)
7ans weight, ring (g)
Tare weight, cap/plate/epoxy <g)
126.63
39.39
0.00
Dry weight of sample (g): 76.24
Sample volume (cm^): 59.97
Assumed particle density: 2.65
o Initial Volumetric Moisture Content (% vol): 21.7
Initial Gravimetric Moisture Content (% g/g): 17.1
Dry bulk density (g/cm^: 1.27
Wet bulk density (glcm^- 1.49
Calculated Porosity {% vol): 52.0
Percent Saturation: 41.7
I
V..J
o
Comments:
* Weight including tares
Laboratory analysis by: M. Devine
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
D anicl B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
Sample Number
Ksat
(cm/sec)
Method of Analysis
Constant Head Falling Head
2
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUF-4
4.1 E-05
3.8E-D6
1.3E-05
1.3E-03
X
X
X
X
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Constant Head Method
Job name: Kleinfelder
Job number WR03.0035.00
Sample number. BLUF-1
Ring number. NA
Deptfi; NA
Type of water used: TAP
Collection vessel tare (g): 11.81
Sample length (cm): 2.97
Sample diameter (cm): 4.84
Sample x-sectionaf ansa (cm^): 18.36
fy
Date
Temp Head Q-Hare Q Elapsed Ksat Ksat@20°C
Tinie (°C) (cm) (g) (cm^) time (sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
Test#1:
26-Feb-03
26-Feb-03
Test #2:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
Test #3:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
12:50.43
13:00:04
'
08:53:42
09:11:51
10:45:38
10:59:48
18.5 12.8
18.5
18.5
12.8
12.8
13.6
15.2
14.4
1.8
3.4
2.6
561 4.0E-O5 4.1E-05
1089 3.9e-05 4.0E-05
850 3.9E-05 4.0E-05
Average Ksat (cm/sec): 4.1 E-05
Comments:
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Constant Head Mettiotd
Job name: Kleinfelder
Job number WR03.0035.00
Sample number BLUF-2
Ring number NA
Depth: NA
Type of water used: TAP
Collection vessel tare ig): 11.81
Sample length (cm): 2.77
Sample diameter (cm): 4.84
Sample x-sectionaf area (cm^): 18.42
r
V
Date Time
Temp Head Q-»-Tare Q Elapsed Ksat Ksiat@20°C
CO {cm) (g) (cm^) time (sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
Test#1:
27-Feb-03 08:54:06
27-Feb-03 09:12:45
18.5 14.6 12.3 0.4 1119 4.1 E-06 4.3E-06
Test #2:
27-Feb-03 10:45:11
27-Feb-03 12:26:06
18.5 14.6 13.9 Z1 6055 3.6E-06 3.7E-^6
Test # 3:
28-Feb-03 10:07:39
2B-Feb.03 10:29:22
18.0 14.6 12.2 0.4 1303 3.4E-06 3.5E-06
Comments:
Average Ksat (cm/sec): 3.8E-06
Laboratory analysis by: D. G'Dowd
Data entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens &. Associates, Inc.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Constant Head Method
Job name: Kleinfelder
Job number WR03.0035.00
Sample number BLUF-3
Ring number NA
Depffj: NA
Type of water used: TAP
Collection vessel tare (g): 10.71
Sample length (cm): 3.41
Sample diameter (cm): 4.88
Sample x-sectional area (cm^): 18.67
f'V
I J-
'T
: 1.
" "3
)
Date
Test#1:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
Test #2:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
Test# 3:
28-Feb-03
28-Feb-03
Time
.08:54:12
09:12:17
10:45:48
12:23:41
10:05:05
10:26:10
Temp
CO
18.5
18.5
18.0
Head Q + Tare Q Elapsed Ksat Ksat@20°C
(cm) (g) (cm^) time (sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
13.2 11.7 1.0 1085 1.2E-05 1.3E-05
13.2 15.8 5.1 5873 1.2E-05 1.2E-05
13.2 11.9 1.2 1265 1.3E-05 1.3E-05
Average Ksat (cm/sec): 1.3E-05
Comments:
i\
Laboraiory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens A Associates, Inc.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Constant Head Method
Job n.ame: Kleinfelder
Job number WR03.0035.00
Sample number BLUF-4
Ring number NA
Depth: NA
Type of water used: TAP
Collection vessel tare (g): 11.93
Sample length (cm): 3.22
Sample diameter (cm): 4.87
Sample x-sectional area (cm^): 18.64
Date
Temp Head Q-i-Tare Q Elapsed Ksat Ksat@20''C
Time (°C) (cm) (9) (cm) time (sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
Test#1:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
Test #2:
27-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
Test #3:
28-Feb-03
28-Feb-03
08:54:23
09:10:02
10:44.50
10:58:17
10:04:07
10:15:02
18.5
18.5
6.8
6.8
18.0 6.8
59.7 47.7
53.6 41.7
43.0 31.1
939 1.3E-03 1.3E-03
807 1.3E-03 1.3E-03
655 1.2E-03 1.3E-03
Comments:
Average Ksat (cm/sec): 1.3E-03
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens i£ Associates, Inc.
Summary of Moisture Characteristics
ofthe Initial Drainage Curve
rr
-
• |»
r-
B -
. i
V
i
.—'
1
1 1
J
^
..:',
Sample Number
BLUF-1
.
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
~
BLUF-4
Pressure Head
(-cm water)
0
21
49
150
510
16623
851293
0
21
49
150
510
7445
851293
0
21
49
150
510
17541
851293
0
10
43
80
510
9892'
851293
Moisture Content
(%, cm^/cm^)
66.9
65.6
63.4
60.4
43.4
15.3
2.5
40.1
39.6
38.0
37.3
25.2
14.1
2.7
38.2
37.8
36.3
34.4
24.6
11.7
2.5
54.6
48.3
41.7
30.8
18.5
8.1
2.9
Dattiel B. Stephens <t Associates, Inc.
Summary of Calculated Unsaturated Hydraulic Properties
Sample Number
BLUF-1
BLUF-2
BLUF-3
BLUF-4
a (cm"')
0.0051
0.0062
0.0071
0.0470
N (dimensionless)
1.3508
1.2957
1.2714
1.3613
Or
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0200
6s
0.6671
0.4035
0.3846
0.5395
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Hanging Column/Pressure Platefrhermocouple
(Main Drainagfe Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-1
Ring Number NA
Depff?: NA
Dry wt. of sample (g): 45.63
Tare vrt., screen & damp (g): 25.32
Tans ivf., ring (g): 36.57
Tare wt, epoxy (g): 0.00
Sample volume (cm^): 54.44
Saturated weight'at 0 cm tension (g): 143.92
Volume ofwafer^ in saturated sample (cm*): 36.40
Saturated moisture content (% vol): 66.86
Sample bulk density (g/cm^): 0.84
•1 i
Hanging column:
Pressure plate:
Date/Time
28-Feb-03 /14:00
03-Mar-O3 /12:30
05-Mar-03/15:30
07-Mar-03/15.00
10-Mar-03/13:00
Weigtit*
(9)
143.92
143.25
142.04
140.38
131.13
Matric
Potential
(-cm water)
0.00
21.00
49.00
150.00
509.90
Moisture
Content^
(% vol)
66.86
65.63
63.41
60.36
43.37
Comments:
* Weight Including tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 glen?
. 1
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Water Activity Meter/Relative Humidity Box
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-1
Ring Numtier NA
Depth: NA
1
Dry weight* of water activity meter sample (g): 134.62
Tare ive/g/jf,/ar (g): 113.64
Sample bulk density (g/cm'): 0.84
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
IVafer Acf/wfy Meter 26-Feb-03/13:30 138.68 16622.7 15.28
Dry weight* of relative humidity box sample (g): 65.04
Tare weight (g): 40.93
*\-Sample bulk density (g/cm ); 0.84
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
Relative humidity box: O3-Mar-03 /12:30 65.75 851293 2.46
Comments:
* Weight inducjing tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 glen?
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa enfened by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
t;.'
D an iel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
1.E-^06
1.E+05 :
1.E+04
a
E o
"g 1.E+03
o
X
3
m
o
a
I.E-t-02
1.E+01 -
1.E+00
<i
Water Retention Data Points
Sample Number BLUF-1
-
-
:
-
X
-
•
••
'
i-i i
• i :
•
i i i i •
• Hanging c»1umn
* Pressure plate
• Thermocxiuple
•Water aclivity meter
XRhbox
•
•
-^ • . W-r-
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens «t Associates, Inc.
Predicted Water Retention Curve and Data Points
Sample Numben BLUF-1
I.E-t-06
"t
].
1.E+05 -
1.E+04
a
a
?
E u
"g 1.E-f03
0)
I
CD
CA «
a)
D-
1.E+02
1,E+01
1.E+00
10
: x\ ; : .; ; : . i
Ur
. .
,
-
L
- 1
1
1
'
1
•

/•
- i \ i ;
• : Nv! i
H Hanging c»lumn
A Pressure plate
• Thertnotxrtjpie
• Water activity meter
X Rh box
Predicted curve
1—
1
—
1
— 1

iiiii
i : ; : : :
!::••• j '-'-.' '.
!::!•• 1 . . ' .
- —-^ F : i 1 1 T r 1 -r- :—.^ -r • : . ', ; 1 1 : 1—
•
v i :
:^:
-i 1
•
1, i .,-,—.—1
20 30 40 50 60 70
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
80
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Number BLUF-1
I.E-t-00
1.E-01
1.E-02 :
I 'i
t • ,
y ..
r
- )
f
\
>
u
D T3
C
o
O
o
3 a
•D
>.
J.
a
>
9
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
Q: 1.E-05
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
Moisture Content (7o,cm /cm )
Daniel B. Stephens tt Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Numben BLUF-1
1.E+00
1.E-01
\ -a 1.E-06
1.E-11
1.E-12
)
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pres:sure Head
Sample Number. BLUF-1
1.E+00
1.E-09
,r
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1,E•^00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E•^03 1.E-^04 1.E+05 1.E+G6
Pressure Head (-cm v/ater)
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sampie Number BLUF-1
I.E-fOO
1.E-01 .
i!
I
L 1.E-11
1.E-12
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E-I-00 1.E-4-01 1.E-H02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E-<-05 1.E+06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
I J.
D aniel B. Stephens <£ Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Hanging Column/Pressure Plate/Themiocouple
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-2
Ring Number NA
Deptfj: NA
Drywt. of sample (g): 74.67
Tare wt, screen & clamp (g): 25.33
Tans wt., ring (g): 34.07
TatB wt., epoxy (g): 0.00
Sample volume (cm'): 50.99
:]
Saturated weight* at 0 cm tension (g): 154.52
Vo/umeofwafer^ in saturated sampfe (cm): 20.45
Saturated moisture content (% vol): 40.11
Sample bulk density (g/cxT?): 1.46
Matric
Weight* Potential
Date/Time (g) (-cm water)
• ) Corriments:
* Weight including tares
^ Assumed density ot water is 1.0 glcrr?
Moisture
Content^
(% vol)
Hanging column:
Pressure plate:
28-Feb-03/14:00
03-Mar-03/12:30
05-Mar-03/15:30
07-Mar-03 /15:00
10-Mar-03/13.00
154.52
154.24
153.47
153.07
146.94
0.00
21.00
49.00
150.00
509.90
40.11
39.56
38.05
37.26
25.24
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Data entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Water Activity AAeterlRelative Humidity Box
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-2
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Dry we/gf7t* of water act/wfy meter sampte (g): 154.86
Tare weigfjf, jar (g); 121.47
Sample bulk density (glcm^): 1.46
'\.
Dale/Time
Weight*
(9)
Matric
Potential
IVaferActivify Meter 27-Feb-03/10:00 158.08 7444.5
Moisture
Content'^'
(-cm water) (% vol)
14.12
• )
Dry weight* of relative humidity box sample (g): 71.00
Tare we/gfjf (g): 42.11
Sample bulk-density {glcrr?): 1.46
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
Relative humidity box: 03-Mar-03 /12:30 , 71.53 851293
Comments:
' Weight including tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 glar?
2.73
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Data entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Water Retention Data Points
Sampie Numben BLUF-2
1.E+06
f
xi
1.E-(-05
1.E+04 -
tt
?
E o
1
"S 1.E-<-03
o
I
o
3
tn
i. a
1.E-I-02 -
1.E+01
1.E+00 '
: X • : ; • ;
1 1
'
I
t
l
t
i
• l-)anging column
A Pressure plate
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
XRhbox
•
i • • :
•i
^—. ,- : i 1 , , —j 1 ; 1 1 , •—. .. 1 r^
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm"')
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Predicted Water Retention Curve and Data Points
Sample Numben BLUF-2
^.l--^UtD -T
1.E+05 :
1.E+04 :
5
?
E
y
1
"S 1.E-^03 -
0)
X
a
0)
lA
£ a
1.E+02 -
1.E+01 -
1.E+00
\| 1 i 1
\ 1 1
\*
-
• Hanging column
A Pressure plale
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
X Rh box
Predicted curve
A \. ;
\ •
Mil
J
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm'/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
• Sampfe Number BLUF-2
1.E+00
1.E-01
-->.
) 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Numben BLUF-2
1 .E-HOO
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
0)
E
1.E-04 .
1.E-05 J
o
3
TJ 1. r
0
o
u
••§ .1
E-06
E-07
-a
1.E-03 4
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-12 1-.
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Numben BLUF-2
1.E+00
• ) I
1.E-08
1.E-09
1.E-03 1.E-02 I.E^OI 1.E-1-00 I.E-i-01 I.E-t-02 I.E-i-03 1.E-»-04 I.E-i-05 1.E+05
Pressure Head (-cm water)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Number BLUF-2
I.E-t-OO
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E•^00 1.E-^01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 I.E-t-06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Hanging Column/Pressure Plate/Thermocouple
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-3
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Dry wL of sample (g); 100.70
Tare wt. screen & clamp (g): 25.48
Tare wt., ring (g): 41.93
Tare wt., epoxy (g): 0.00
Sample volume {or?): 63.72
3
1
o
Saturated weight* at 0 cm tension (g): 192.47
Volume of water^ in saturated sample {cn?): 24.36
Saturated moisture content (% vol): 38.23
Sample bulk density (g/cm'): 1,58
Hanging column:
Pressure plate:
Date/Time
28-Feb-03/14:00
03-Mar-03/12:30
05-Mar-03/15:30
07-Mar-03/15:00
10-Mar-03/13:00
Weight* '
(9)
192.47
192.17
191.27
190.00
183.80
Matric
Potential
(-cm water)
0.00
21.00
49.00
150.00
509.90
Moisture
Content^
(% vol)
38.23 •
37.76
36.34
34.35
24.62
Comments:
* Weight including tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 glen?
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
L..
Daniel B. Stephens £. Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Water Activity Meter/Relative Humidity Box
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-3
Fiing Number NA
Depth: NA
:)
H:
Dry weigfjf* of wafer acfn/Sy meter samp/e (g): 141.82
Tare weight, jar (g): 111.56
Sample bulk density {Qlcrc?): 1.58
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
Water Activity Meter 27-Feb-03 / 09:50 144.06 17540.6 11.70
Dry weight* of relative humidity box sample (g): 85.94
Tare weight (g): 40.78
Sample bulk density {glcrr?): 1.58
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
Relative humidity box: 03-Mar-03 /12:30 86.67 851293 2.53
Comments:
' Weight including tares
^ Assumed density of waler is 1.0 glcrr?
Laboratory analysis by: 0. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Water Retention Data Points
Sample Number BLUF-3
i.n-t-uo T
I.E-t-05 -.
1.E-1-04 :
<D
t
E o
1
•g I.E-I-03 -
0)
I
2
3
(ff
(0
ffl
1-
a
I.E-t-02
1.E-f01
1 .E-HOO
X ; i i : i .
i •
L... ..; ...; i i i
1 1
• Hanging column
A Pressure plale
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
XRhbox
i A i i
[ml
• i
; : i [ , [
A- .-.-. i '•• .,,!,, , .J ^ .-i--^ .^^
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (7o,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens <fe Associates, Inc.
;i
L,
t/
Predicted Water Retention Curve and Data Points
Samp/eWumber BLUF-3
10
1.E+05 :
1.E-t-04 -
a
£
o
1
"S 1.E+03-
ffl
I
ffl
3
m
0)
(D
%.
a
1.E+02 :
1.E+01
I.E-HOO
^\
K*
:
j i
i i
• Hanging column
A Pressure plate
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
X Rhbox
Predicted curve
AS.
hi ;
-i—,—•—I ,—-.—1—•—I
;. ;
20 30 40
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
50 60
r' •
r -
^ j
I
• )
1
Daniel B. Stephens i Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Number BLUF-3
LE-t-OO ,
1.E-01 4
1.E-09
Moisture Content (%,cm /cm )
Daniel B. Stephens JL Associates, Inc.
;i
I.E-t-OO
1 .E-01
1.E-02 --
1.E-03
1.E-04 J
1
• )
1.E-12
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Number BLUF-3
Moisture Content (7o,cm /cm )
.-i
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Number BLUF-3
I.E-t-OO
1.E-01 -.-
1.E-02 :
^ 1.E-03
o
3
TJ
0 1.E-04
O
3
n
">. 1.E-05
o
JS
ID
0^ 1.E-05
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
! ; : "--.v^ .' ; : ;
1.E-03 1.E-02 1,E-01 I.E-t-OO 1.E-f01 1.E-i-02 I.E-t-03 I.E-i-04 I.E-i-05 1.E-t-06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
Daniels. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
1.E+00
1.E-D1-4
1.E-02
1.E-03
1.E-12
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Number BLUF-3
•'i\ 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 I.E+OO I.E-t-01 I.E-t-02 1.Et-03 1.E-H04 1.E-+05 1.E+06
Pressure Head {-cm water)
Daniel B. Stephens <t Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Hanging Column/Pressure Piate/Thermocouple
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Wame: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sampte Number BLUF-4
Ring Number NA
Depth: NA
Dry wt. of sampfe (g): 76.24
Tare wt., screen & clamp (g): 25.84
Tare wi.. ring (g): 39.39
Tare wt., epoxy (g): 0.00
Sampte volume {or?): 59.97
I
' \
• )
Saturated Vi/eight* at 0 cm tension (g): 174.24
Volume ofwater'^ in saturated sample {cn?): 32.77
Safurafecf moisture content {% vol): 54.64
Sample bulk density (g/cm'): 1.27
Hanging column:
Pressure plate:
Date/Time
28-Feb-03 /14:00
03-Mar-03/12:30
05-Mar-03/15:30
07-Mar-03/15:00
10-Mar-03/13:00
Weight*
(9)
174.24
170.46
166.48
159.94
152.54
Matric
Potential
(-cm water)
0.00
10.00
43.00
80.00
509.90
Moisture
Content^
(% vol)
54.64
48.34
41.70
30.80
18.46
Comments:
' Weight including tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 glcsr?
.'•
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Dan ie I B. Stephens A Associates, Inc.
Moisture Retention Data
Water Activity Meter/Relative HumicJity Box
(Main Drainage Curve)
Job Name: Kleinfelder
Job Number WR03.0035.00
Sample Number BLUF-4
Ring Number NA
DepOt: NA
.J
'1 I
Dry weight* of water activity meter sample (g): 140.98
Tare weight, jar {g): 116.07
Sample bulk density {glen?): 1.27
Date/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Contenf"
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
WaferAct/v/fy Meter 28-Feb-03/10:30 142.56 9892.1 8.06
' )
Dry weight* of relative humidity box sample (g): 71.69
Tare weight (g); 44.95
Sample bulk density {gtcn?): 1.27
Dale/Time
Matric Moisture
Weight* Potential Content^
(g) (-cm water) (% vol)
Relative humidity box: 03-Mar-03 /12:30 72.31 851293 2.93
Comments:
* Weight including tares
^ Assumed density of water is 1.0 gfar?
Laboratory analysis by: D. O'Dowd
Dafa entered by: D. O'Dowd
Checked by: D. O'Dowd
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Water Retention Data Points
Sample Numben BLUF-4
1.E4-06
I.E-t-05
I.E-t-04
n
E o
"S I.E-^03
o
X
3
0)
(0
a
I.E-t-02
1.E+01
.^.
1.E-I-00 -!
0
: X i ; i ; ;
iiiii
i i i i
:
m Hanging column
A Pressure plate
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
XRhbox
——
1
—
1
—
1 1
.
1
.
1
1
1
1 1
1
L
I
I
I
I
•
I
'. -. '- ' -
i
4
10 20 30 40
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
50 60
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Predicted Water Retention Curve and Data Points
Sample Number BLUF-4
I.E-t-06
l.E-t-05
I.E-I-04
?
E o
I
"S I.E-i-03
o
X
3
(0
(0
o
I.E-t-02
1.E-t-01
1.E+00 •!
10 20 30
11
;\
^
•
.! •. , , ,
\ ! :
-i 1— r 1 -c- ; [ 1 —1 1
• Hanging column
A Pressure plate
• Thermocouple
• Water activity meter
X Rhbox
Predicted curve
m\.
•
: 1 -. i ^—IB-I ^
40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Number BLUF-4
I.E-t-OO
1.E-01
2
• \
I
H
H
1.E-09 4
Moisture Content ("/o.cm'/cm )
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Numben BLUF-4
1.E-I-00
1.E-01 =
...J:
1
1.E-11
10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^}
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
P|ot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Numben BLUF-4
\
.]
1 .1
I.E-t-OO
1.E-01 :
1.E-02
1.E-03
o
3
T3
O 1.E-04
O
o
"3
a
t.
> 1.E-05
>
_M
0)
^ 1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08 :
1.E-09
:
;
ill i \ • ^
lili Ml
i^
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 I.E-t-OO I.E-i-01 I.E-^02 1.E-t-03 I.E-t-04 I.E-i-05 1.E-h06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Numben BLUF-4
I.E-t-OO
1.E-01 .
J
1.E-12
iJ 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 I.E-t-OO 1.E-t-01 I.E-t-02 1.E-f03 I.E-i-04 I.E-i-05 1.E-t-06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
o
I
L:
Laboratory Tests
and Methods
Daniel B. Stephens i Associates, Inc.
: )
Methods
Dry Bulk Density:
MoisUife Content
Ksat
ASTWD 4531-91
ASTM D 22tS-92
Calculated Porosity Klute, A 1986. Porosty. Chp.18-2.1, pp. 444-445, in A. Klute (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis,
American Sociely of Agronomy, Madison, Wl
Constant Head: ASTM D 2434-68 (93)
Hanging Column Method Klute, A. 1985. Porosty. Chp.26, in A, Klute (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis,
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI
Pressure Plate Method ASTM D 2325-65 (94)
Water Potential Method Dane, H. Jacob and G. Clark Topp. 2002. Chp.3. pp. 663-665. in J. H. Dane and G. C. Topp (ed.),
Methods of Sof Analysis, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl
Relative Humidity Box Klute, A. 1986. Porosty. Chp.26. In A. Klute (ed), Methods of Soil Analysis.
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl
Calc. Kunsat Soil Sd. Soc. Am. J. 1980 44:892-898
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
1.E+06
1.E-K15 -
I.E-t-04 -
o
a
E o
"S 1-E+03
o
X
3
(A n o
1.E-I-02
I.E-I-01
I.E-t-OO
<>
Predicted Water Retention Curve and Data Points
Sample Number BLUF-4
10
-
•
•
J
J
1
\ i i i .'
• Hanging column
A Pressure plate
• Theimocouple •
• Water activity meter
X Rhbox
Predicted curve
20 30 40
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
50 60
D aniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relati've Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Numben BLUF-4
I.E-t-OO ^
1.E-01
1
A
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm'')
Daniel B. Stephens <£ Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Moisture Content
Sample Numben BLUF-4
I.E-t-OO
1.E-01
1.E-02 4
1.E-03 .
«]
E
o
>»
^.»
*>
•3
U
3 •n c o O
li
3 a
t.
•a
X
1.E-04
1.E-05 .
1.E-06
u
Moisture Content (%,cm^/cm^)
Daniels. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Relative Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Numben BLUF-4
1.E-V00
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 I.E-t-OO I.E-i-01 I.E-t-02 I.E-t-03 I.E-^04 1.E-t-05 I.E-i-05
Pressure Head {-cm water)
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Plot of Hydraulic Conductivity vs Pressure Head
Sample Numben BLUF-4
1.E+00
1.E-01
<r
1.E-12
•i I
I- J 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 I.E-t-OO I.E-f-01 1.E-t-02 I.E-i-03 I.E-t-04 l.E-t-05 1.E+06
Pressure Head (-cm water)
Bayview Landfiii
Frost Depth Calculation
. Elberta, Utah NOAA Data
1951 -1980
Dry Density 94
Moisture Content 13
Freezing Index (degree day) 880
Mean Annual Air Temperature (deg F) 50.3
Vo (deg F) 24.6
Vs(degF) 7.0
Length ol Analysis Freezing Period (day) 125
Latent Heat of Fustion 'L" CBty/ff^S) 1752.3
Volumetric Heat "C" (Btu/ft/degF) 25.145
Thennal Conductivity of Soil (Btum'^2/hr/degF/in) 0.6
Alpha (Vo/Vs) 3.5
Fusion Parameter "mu' 0.10
=free2ing index/length of freezing
Correction Coefficient 'lamtxia* 0.62
=C*VsA.
chart
z= Lambda * ((48'F)/(L7k))'S).5
z = 2.36 feet
z = 28.3 inches
UtiOT H •^ "2-<D — '^O '-^cX^,
state a'nd Station Name
Utah
BRYCE CANYON NP HDQ
CAPITOL REEF NATL MON
CEDAR CITY FAA AP
COTTONWOOD WEIR //
COVE FORT //
DEER CREEK DAM
DESERET
DESERT EXP RANGE
DUGWAY
ECHO DAM
ELBERTA
EPHRAIM SORENSENS FLD
ESCALANTE
FAIRFIELD
FARMINGTON USU FLD STA
FERRON
FILLMORE
FORT DUCHESNE
GARFIELD
GR_EEN RIVER AVN
HANKSVILLE
HEBER
HIAWATHA
JENSEN
KANAB
LAKETOWN
LAVERKIN
LEVAN
LOA
LOGAN UTAH STATE UNIV
MANTI
MEXiCAN HAT
MILFORD WSO
MOAB 4 NW
Air Freezing Index- USA Method (Base 32° Fahrenheit)
station
Number •
421006
• 421171
_421267_
421759
421792
422057
422101
422116
422257
422385
422418
422578
422592
422696
42272S
42279B
42282a
422996
423097
"42341B
423611"
423809
423896
424342
424S0B
424856
"424968
425065
425148
425166
425402
425582
425554
Lat.
(De9. -
Mln.)
Long.
(D.g. •
Mln.)
Elev.
IftttI
N3739
N3817
N3742
N4037
N3836
N4024
N3917
N3836
N4Q11
N4058
N3957
N3921
N3746
N4Q16
N4101
N30O5
N3857
N4017
N4043
N3900
N3822
N4031
N3929
N4022
N3703
N4149
N3712
N3933
N3824
N4145
N3915
N3709
N3826
W11210
W11115
W11306
W11147
W11235
W11132
W11239
W11345
W11256
W11126
\N^^^57
W11135
W11136
W11205
W11154
W1110B
W11219
W10952
W11212
W11010
W11043
W11125
W11101
W10921
Wil 232
W11119
W11316
W11152
W11139
W11149
W11138
W10952
W11301
7915
5500
5620
4950
5980
5270
4585
5252
4340
5500
4690
5560
5810
4876
4340
5925
5160
4990
4310
4070
4308
5580
7230
4720
4985
5988
3200
5300
7045
4785
5740
4270
5028
425733 N3a36 W10936 3965
Mean
Anniral
Temp.
(»F)
53.6
47.8
43.5
49.2
49.0
51.4
47.0
49.4
46.6
51.2
47.7
51.2
44.7
45.2
45.4
54.6
42.0
58.6
47.6
66.6
Air Freezing Index Return Periods (°F-Days) & Associated Probabilities (%)
1.1-
Year
(10V.)
1.2
Year
(20%)
2
Year
(60%)
2.S
Year
(50%)
3.3
Year
irov.)
6
Year
(B0%)
10
Year
(90%)
20
Year
(95%)
25
Year
(9«%)
50
Year
(98%)
100
Year
(99%)
606
60
80
50
158
464
168
136
114
379
113
297
114
271
76
318
79
627
68
180
122
414
405
570
13
523
175
397
225
214
15
149
36
743
100
125
80
231
614
249
212
178
498
177
405
173
375
123
428
127
846
109
274
194
644
521
782
24
678
254
513
322
297
35
226
1010
217
248
165
407
936
453
416
344
753
347
560
324
614
253
670
257
1332
223
516
390
822
760
1261
59
1001
20
445
754
5S4
485
118
68
420
1090
263
293_
198
468
1039
524
491
405
1173
317
345
235
537
1150
605
578
833
410
730
378
692
302
748
306
1489
266
603
463
910
834
1419
73
1102
26
511
830
634
547
159
176
489
222
475
920
482
616
440
779
360
833
363
1661
316
702
548
1005
914
1592
91
1211
33
584
911
722
616
212
568
278
1270
387
411
283
621
1281
705
686
562
1023
572
923
516
883
432
935
435
1866
379
826
655
1117
1007
1798
115
1338
44
674
1005
829
696
269
666
1399
493
509
355
743
1464
850
849
1503
590
596
420
847
1814
976
693
1165
708
1071
629
1032
543
1077
544
2153
475
1008
817
1273
1134
2091
152
1514
61
804
1136
984
815
422
355
•811
992
1532
620
622
439
878
1658
1014
607
1282
828
1195
728
1156
641
1195
640
2392
560
1167
961
1401
1238
2336
188
1657
78
915
1242
1116
914
558
936
1035
842
1313
864
1231
1615
708
699
497
968
1783
1123
1162
1689
791
721
"551'
1050
1895
1223
943
I' 969
757
1192
671
1229
670
2462
586
1214
1004
1438
1268
2408
199
1699
83
948
1273
1155
943
602
478 595
974
831
1335
843
1297
760
1328
756
2662
663
1354
1132
1543
1354
2614
232
1817
100
1044
1360
1288
1026
740
1084
743
1280
1037
T555^i
1068
T,Pt^ K. IS<
1428
923
1392
842
1416
J37_
2841
734
1482
1252
1638
1429
2B00
263
1921
116
1131
1438
1371
1101
880
1185
850
Footnotes:
* Probability of occurrence less than indicatad probability (Value=0)
" No Freezing Index Values Recorded during 1951-80 period (Value=0) 79 Prepared by NOAA - Nalional Climatic Data Center
X
^
V
% o
I
•J
-> ( o-
i
^
I
Q-I
Lij|
h
0
u.
i
CM
le KLEINFELDER
An ejnp/c>>'ce Qanitd company
July 31, 2003
File No.: 30268.001
Mr. Terry Wamer
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
Subject: Source Material Investigation
South Utali VaUey Landfill (Baj-view LandFiIl)
Utah County, Utah
Dear Mr. Wamer:
In conjunction with KJeinfelder's report dated July I, 2003, we are providing tlie following
information to summarize the findings of our report.
Identification of Suitable Material
Based on laboratory testing and modeling, as presented in Kleinfelder's Meteoric Water Infiltration
Study, one of the predominant soils at Bay\'iew LandfiU has been identified as an acceptable
material for the CeU 1 protective cap. This soil is classified as a silty sand (SM) to sandy silt (ML),
and is generally olive brown in color. Based on numerous tests performed on this proposed
capping material, this material can generally be characterized by the following grain-sizes:
Sieve Size
No. 4 (1/4 inch)
No. 40
No. 60
No. 200
Percent Passing
95 - 100%
70-100%
60-95%
30-70%
Other materials present at the site differ significantly from this gradation criteria and are generally
easy to screen out based on field logging and gradation tests.
Location of Suitable Material
The proposed suitable cap material was found in the stockpile north of Cell 1 and in the floor ofthe
excavation for Cell 2. In the Uiree borings drilled in the stockpile north of Cell 1, we found one 5-
foot thick layer in B-3, and a few other pockets of material tlial did not meet these specifications.
We investigated the materials immediately below the stockpile north of Cell 1 and beneath the
dune sand south of Cell 2 and found only^some pockets of material suitable for construction ofthe
protective cap layer in those locations.
HDR/30268.001/SLC3L290 Page 1 of 2 July 31,2003
Cop>Tigiit 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 2G77 East iVleys Vvay, Salt Lake City, UT 841Q'.M017 ^80•.! 4n6-6"<.0 180',) .>6b-6TaS fax
Two test pits excavated within Cell 2 contained 6 to 7 feet ofthe suitable cap material.
We recommend tliat lenses or pockets encountered within the stockpile or under Cell 2 that do not
fall within the gradation criteria identified above be excluded fi'oin use in tiie protective cap layer
unless further testing and analysis is performed to evaluate their suitability.
Kleinfelder appreciates this opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions regarding this
report please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
Respectfiilly,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Renee Zollinger, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Scott Davis, P.E,
Geotechnical Division Manager
cc: Mike Oden, HDR Engineering
Richard Henry, South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
HDR/3026S.OOi/SLC3L290 Page2of2 July 31,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 2677 East Parley's Way, SaltLake City, UT 34109-1617 (SOU 46C--f'7f,o (H01) 466-6788 fax
SIEVE ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
coarse rine
SAND
coarse mtdiun Tine
HYDROMETER
SILT CLAY
1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4
I ^ .1
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
#10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
Symbol
•
CD
Sample Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description USCS
Ciassirication
,J
Si
m KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
B-1
• 1
0
0
;]
J
HPI KLEINFELDER
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE
Meteoric Water Infiltration Study
South Utah Valley Landfill CBayview Landfill)
Utah Countv, Utah
Report originally prepared for HDR Engineerins, Inc.
File Number: 26515.001 ReportDate: September 9. 2003
KLEINFELDER, INC.
849 West LeVoy Drive, Suite 200
Taylorsville, UT 84123
[phone]
[phone]
To Whom It May Concem:
Applicant understands and agrees that (he above-referenced report for the subject site is a copyrighted
document, that Kleinfelder, Inc. is the copyrighl owner and that unauthorized use or copying of the report
for the subject site is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder, Inc.
Applicant understands that Kleinfelder, Inc. may wjtlihold such pemtission at its sole discretion, or grant
permission upon such terms and conditions as il deems acceptable.
By signing below, the Rching Parties agree to the same terms and conditions as Kleinfelder's
original client, including any limitations of liability' or indcniait>- obligations. Tbe original ser^ice$
agreement may be obtained from the original client identified above or from Kleinfelder, upon
request.
To be Completed bv Applicant
'. • '•" - - '^•- " ••' .By:"-"
(company name) (Print Name)
(address)
(city, state, zip)
Title:
Date:
(Sipiaiure)
(telephone) (FAX)
By:
. To be Completed bv Kleinfelder. Inc.
Approved for reuse with applicant agreeirig to above terms and concurrence by
original client. Additional fees are estimated at $ -'' _.
Disapproved, report needs to be updated.
• Date:
Kleinfelder, Inc.
RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO KLEINFELDER
HDR/265 ] 5.001 /SLC3R082
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
September 9, 2003
i
)
APPENDIX N
Attachment N-1
Addendum to Closure Cap Equivalency Report
KLEINFELDER
February 9,2004 - _
File No.: 26515.001
FEB } 0 200^
Mr. Terry Wamer
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84107
Subject: Estimate of Realistic Infiltration Rates
South Utah Valley Landfill (Bayview LandfiU)
Utah County, Utah
Dear Terry,
I have reviewed the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW) Request for
Additional Infonnation dated November 12, 2003. I also attended a meeting at DSHW with you
on December 9, 2003. This letter addresses the questions raised by DSHW in Item No. 3 (2"^
bullet) ofthe Request for Additional Information.
DSHW QUESTION
The DSHW requested that we provide evidence that the proposed evaporative cap will perform
£is well as an actual cap that Stephen Dwyer tested and found exhibited a leakage rate less than
3 mm/year.
This question is addressed below.
EVIDENCE THAT PROPOSED CAP MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARD
WTien the modeling study was performed last year, no performance standard existed for
evaporative caps. Under DSHW guidance, our modeling study (Kleinfelder, 2003') showed that
the proposed evaporative cap out-performs the prescriptive cap under normal and worst-case
weather conditions. However, all modeling was performed on a comparative basis (prescriptive
versus evaporative). Our study did not include developing an estimate of "real" infiltration rates
under site conditions.
Since we performed the required modeling, DSHW has begun to consider using an infiltration
rate of 3 mm/year as a performance standard for evaporative caps. I assume DSHW will enforce
this standard under normal weather conditions (possibly including realistic/historical worst case
weather), since the standard appears to be based on actual field test cases conducted under real
weather pattems, as well as modeling performed using normal climate conditions.
' Kleinfelder, 2003. Meteoric Waier Infiliralion Study, Soulh Uitih Valley Landfill, September 9, 2003, File No. SLC3R082.
State of Utah-DERR.'40079.001 ,'SLC4L022 Page 1 of 4 February 9,2004
Copyright 2004 Kleinfelder, Jnc.
KLEINFELDER 849 WW Levoy Drive, Taylorsville, UT S412.^-2.S44 '301)261-3336 i80ll 26[-3305 fax
I have looked at the studies of "real" infiltration rates suggested by DSHW, compared these
studies to our modeling study, and have concluded that the proposed evaporative cap at Bayview
Landfill will meet the performance standard being considered by DSHW for the following
reasons:
All studies 1 reviewed demonstrated that the evaporative caps out-perform
prescriptive caps. This information is in agreement with our modeling study,
where, under identical worst-case (conservative) assumptions, the proposed
evaporative cap allowed less infiltration than the prescriptive cap.
This result is summarized below.
Prescriptive Cap
Evaporative Cap
Range of Infiltration Rates
Normal Climate
41.4 to 46.5 mm/yr
26.3 to 41.2 mnvyr
Hypothetical Worst Case Rainfall
138.5 to] 81.2 mm/yr
70.7 to 121.7 mm/yr
Field studies performed by Stephen Dwyer (Dwyer, 2000 ) quoted "real"
(observed) prescriptive cap infiltration rates that average 4.82 mm/year compared
to "real" evaporative cap infiltration rales that average 0.19 mm/year. The
observed (Dwyer) and modeled prescriptive (Kleinfelder) caps should have
similar rates, but the rates measured in the field differ from our modeled rates by
an order of magnitude because: our model omitted the mitigating effects of plant
transpiration; our modeled rates are based on conser\'ative choices for cell size,
boundary types, initial saturation, etc., used in "building" the numerical model;
our modei used hypothetical high rainfall (greater than observed in historical
records) to evaluate worst case perfoimance; and our modeled "normal" rainfall is
approximately 3 times higher than actual rainfall in the Dwyer study.
If our conservative assumptions increased the modeled prescriptive cap
infiltration rate by an order of magnitude over Dwyer's results, they probably also
increased our evaporative cap infiltration rates by an order of magnitude.
Therefore, it appears that under more realistic assumptions, our modeled
infiltration rates for the evaporative cap would have been around 2 to 4 mm/year.
The studies we reviewed consistently demonstrate that, in practice, evaporative
caps allow about 10 times less moisture to infiltrate than do prescripti^'e caps. We
made one modeling assumption on our evaporative cap that "overruled" the
model's predication for producing that result. We added a 2-inch hypothetical
"topsoil" layer to the top of the modeled evaporative cap that allowed excess
water storage in an attempt to simulate a loosened ground surface produced by
wind erosion. In our experience, adding a loose, organic topsoil significantly
Dwyer, el a!., 2000, H-'aler Balance Dalajrum ihe Allernalive Landfill Co\'er Demonslration.
State of Utah-DERR7'40079.001/SLC4L022 Page 2 of 4
Copyright 2004 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 84y West Lo\w\ Drive, T,i\ior.s\ ilje, DT 8412.3-2544 ',8011 261-3j3r, 8Q1 2f)l-330f) lax
Febniarv 9. 2004
increases the infiltration rate predicted by the model. Our approach in the
modeling study was to add a conservative "worst-case" condition to the
evaporative cap and compare it to the prescriptive cap. Even under this worst-
case assumption, the evaporative cap allowed less infiltration than the prescriptive
cap. In reality, we do not obser\'e a 2-inch, loose, organic topsoil developing in
the area around Bayview Landfill and do not expect the cap to develop a
permanent layer comparable to the modeled topsoil layer.
Based on the results of the other studies I reviewed, especially Dwyer's work, I
believe this hypothetical "topsoil effect" we included produced unrealistically
high infiltration rates for the evaporative cap. Removing this topsoil from the
model would decrease the modeled infiltration rate significantly, and would result
in predicted performance that better matches the observed performance in
Dwyer's study.
4. Several studies 1 reviewed (Mackey, 2002^ Foriina, 2003'*; Zomberg, 2003^; and
Thompson, 2003^), described the composition and texture of evaporative cap
material that either met the 3 mm/year performance standard or exceeded the
Subtitle C prescriptive cap performance. Accepted cap thicknesses range from 20
to 48 inches and, when specified at all, fines comprised at least 28 to 50 percent of
the soil material. These soils and cap thicknesses are very similar to the Bayview
Landfill proposed evaporative cap, and were applied in similar climatic settings
(Montana, Colorado, and Califomia).
CONCLUSION
For the four reasons discussed above, ] believe the proposed evaporative cap at Bayview Landfill
will perform better than the prescriptive cap described in the Solid Waste Rules will perform as
well as the other evaporative caps being documented in the literatures and will meet the 3
xnmi''ycaT performance criteria under the same conditions that other evaporative caps meet that
criteria.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions drawn above are based on the study modeling performed by Kleinfelder and the
information available in cited literature. These conclusions are subject to limitations on the
current accepted understanding of unsaturated flow processes and the limited field tests that have
been perfonned and documented to date. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
' Mackey, et al., 200.1 HCRA Equivalent Cover Demomslrniion Projecl, Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
•* Foriina, Ron, 2003. The Approval Process fi>r an Aliernaiiw Final Cover Sysiemforthe Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site,
Colorado.
' Zomberg, Jorge, 2003. Operaiirig Industries, Inc., Superfiind Landfill.
' Thompson, Rick, 2003, Mr. M. Landfill, Ahemative Cover, Fergas County, Montana.
State of Utah-DERR'40079.001/SLC4L022 Page 3 of 4 February 9,2004
Cop\Tight 2004 Kleinfelder. Inc.
KLEINFELDER S49 Wvit le\-o\ Drive, T.ivlors\ jl)e, L'T 8412.3-254^ iSDI: 261-3336 :801 • 261-3306 fax
i
I appreciate this opportunity to assist you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have questions
or need additional information.
Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Renee Zollinger, R.G.
Regional Manager
cc. Mike Oden, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Dick Sprague, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Richard Henry, South Utah Valley Landfill
State of Uiah-DERR'40079.001/SLC4L022 Page 4 of 4 Febraary 9,2004
Copmght 2004 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLFlSiPELDER 849 West Le\o\ Dii\(j Tavlorsville, LT 8412 3-2544 .801' 261 -3336 ,801 • 201-3306 fax
September 12, 2005
Matt Sullivan
Division of Sohd and Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Subject: Bayview Landfill Cell 1 Closure Documents
HAf\fD DELIVERED
SEP .3 0 2005
UTAHDIVISIONOF
SOLIDS HAZARDOUS WASTE
Dear Mr. Sullivan
This letter transmits the Bayview Landfill Cell 1 closure constmction documents. The
enclosed documents address your comments that were discussed at the June 24,2005
meeting and are presented in a stand-alone document. Previous submittals have combined
Cell 1 closure procedures with constmction documents for lining Cell 2 Phase I.
If you have any additional questions or comments feel free to contact me at (801)743-
7812, or Richard Henry at [phone].
Sincerely,
Terty^amer, P.E.
Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Enclosure
cc: Richard Henry, District Manager, SUVSWD, letter only
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East
Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84107-2594
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.hdrinc.com
Cell 1 Closure
Construction Procedures and
Quality Assurance Plan
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill
Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East, Suite 100
SaltLakeCity, UT84107
Submitted August 2005
Contents
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 CELL 1 FINAL COVER 2
2.1 Final Cover Description.................................................................................... 2
2.2 Final Cover Construction.......................................— 2
23 Erosion Controls 3
2.4 Erosion Detection 4
3.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE 5
3.1 Project Team 5
3.2 Inspection, Sampling, and Testing 6
33 Documentation and Corrective Action 7
3.3.1 Documentation 7
3.3.2 Corrective Action 7
Tables
Table!. Seed Mix 4
Attachments
Attachment 1. Cell 1 Closure Drawings 8
Attachment 2. Cover Soil Gradation Requirements and Testing Forms 9
Attachment 3. Inspection and Compaction Testing Forms 10
Attachment 4. Construction Documents Project Manual 11
August 2005 Cell 1 Ciosure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
Gontents
This page is intentionally blank.
Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
1.0 Introduction
1 1.0 Introduction
2 This document summarizes the construction procedures for the approved
3 altemative cover system at the South Utah Valley Solid Waste District (District)
4 Bayview Landfill and the quahty assurance plan that will be used to ensure that
5 the final cover meets the design intent The altemative landfill cover design was
6 the result of extensive coordination with representatives fi'om the Utah Division
7 of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW). During this coordination, the District
8 demonstrated that the altemative cover would outperform a prescriptive final
9 cover as defined by Utah solid waste regulations (Utah Administrative Code
10 [UAC] R315-303).
11 The infonnation in this document was taken fi-om the landfill's permit
12 application, which was submitted in October 2003 and modified in February
13 2004. Section 2.0 of this document contains a brief description of the final cover
14 system and the construction methods that will be used to construct the cover. The
15 Final Cover Equivalency Report is attached to the pennit application as
16 Appendix N.
17 Appendix O of the permit application is the Construction Quality Assurance
18 (CQA) Plan, which was created to address several construction situations
19 including the use of synthetics in the liner system for Cell 2, Phase I. When the
20 pennit application was submitted, the District was considering constmcting the
21 Cell 2 liner system and the Cell 1 final cover under one contract. The District
22 now plans to place the final cover using its own personnel with the oversight of a
23 third-party CQA firm. Section 3.0 of this document presents the sections of
24 Appendix O that apply to the final cover construction for Cell 1 at the Bayview
25 Landfill. Revisions to Appendix O are incorporated in Section 3.0 to reflect the
26 District's planned construction procedures and the recent experimental cover
27 placement activities at the landfill.
28 Attachment 1 ofthis document contains the Cell 1 closure drawings. Attachment
29 2 contains the cover soil gradation requirements and testing forms. Attachment 3
30 contains the field Inspection and Compaction Testing forms that will be used for
31 the project. Attachment 4 is the Construction Documents Project Manual, which
32 contains construction specifications and the original Appendix O from the permit
33 application.
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
2.0 Cell 1 Final Cover
1 2.0 Cell 1 Final Cover
2 2.1 Final Cover Description
3 An altemate final cover of the capping system for the Bayview Landfill has been
4 designed. Attachment 1 contains the design drawings for Cell 1 Qosure. The
5 design for the capping system includes the following layers of material fi-om the
6 bottom up:
7 • Thirty-four inches of cover material will be constmcted from the olive-
8 brown silty sand available onsite.
9 •An additional layer of compost or compost-amended soil will be used on
10 top of the cover material to store moisture, help the initial seed covering
11 germinate, and control erosion until vegetation is established.
12 A modeling study perfonned by Kleinfelder, Inc. in April 2003 found that this
13 altemative cover will perform as well as, or better than, a prescriptive cap
14 defined in UAC R315-303-3(4). A copy of that smdy is included as Appendix N
15 of the permit application.
16 2.2 Final Cover Construction
17 Final waste grades (including intermediate cover) are shown on Sheet Dl in
18 Attachment 1. The District will use a GPS (global positioning system) survey to
19 confirm final waste grades. A series of metal stakes or poles will then be placed
20 on top of the intermediate cover at 100-foot intervals. These stakes will be
21 marked 34 inches from the bottom to indicate that the final cover has reached the
22 appropriate thickness. Stakes will be removed from an area once the cover soil
23 has been placed to the required thickness. The final cover thickness will be
24 surveyed to verify that the cover thickness has been achieved.
25 The compaction of the final cover material will be between 75% and 85% of the
26 maximum dry density based on a modified proctor (ASTM D1557). A
27 compaction test will be conducted every 10,000 square feet. If the compaction is
28 consistentiy greater than 85%, the cover placement procedures might be adjusted.
29 If an area has a relative compaction greater than 85%, it will be treated by
30 ripping the cover soil with a motor grader. The grader can loosen the soil down to
31 a depth of about 24 inches. If an area has a relative compaction lower than 75%,
32 it will he treated by regrading the cover soil with a motor grader to allow the
33 underlying material to settie.
Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
2.0 Cell 1 Final Cover
1 Scrapers (Models 623F and 623G) will be used to collect suitable cover soils that
2 are either stockpiled or lying in-situ on the Bayview property. About three lifts
3 will be needed to provide enough cover material. A motor grader (John Deere
4 Model CH 770) will then be used to evenly spread the cover soil to the required
5 thickness. In wet weather, a track dozer (CAT D8) could be used to spread the
6 cover material. No field compaction wiU be required because the cover material
7 is expected to reach the minimum compaction (75%) once it is placed and
8 graded. At tbis minimum conq)action, the soil density should be adequate to
9 ensure that 34 inches of cover is maintained over final waste/intermediate cover
10 and that only minor settiing of the cover material itself occurs.
11 After the final cover is placed, a series of metal stakes with plastic fibers attached
12 to the top will be placed in the final cover on 100-foot centers across Cell 1.
13 These metal stakes, which are commonly referred to as 'Tslue tops" or
14 "whiskers," will be driven about 2 inches into the completed final cover until the
15 plastic fibers are just below the surface. See Sheet D3, E>etail 1 (Erosion
16 Detection Marker), in Attachment 1. If the fibers become visible over time, this
17 will indicate that the final cover has eroded. Additionally, a series of benchmarks
18 will be placed around the perimeter of the landfill cell to be used to determine
19 when the waste or cover materials have stopped settiing.
20 2.3 Erosion Controls
21 The cover wiU be seeded with native grasses suitable for the arid climate at the
22 Bayview Landfill. Granite Seed Company used the Natural Resources
23 Conservation Service's (NRCS) VegSpec software to determine the appropriate
24 seed mix for the landfill. VegSpec uses soil, plant, and climate data to select
25 appropriate plant species. The seed mix design is presented in Table 1 below.
26 Also see Specification 02930-2 in Attachment 4.
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
2.0 Cell 1 Final Cover
Table 1. Seed Mix
Type of Grass
Sand dropseod
Alkali sacaton
Blue grama
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Indian ricegrass
Sandberg bluegrass
Sheep fescue
Slender wheatgrass
Streambank wheatgrass
Westem wheatgrass
Percent Mix
0.50%
1.50%
3.50%
17.50%
17.50%
3.00%
4.00%
16.25%
16.25%
20.00%
100.00%
2 Ifnecessary, the District will sprinkle-irrigate the cover to help establish the
3 vegetation.
4 As mentioned above, an additional l-to-2-inch-thick layer of congest or
5 compost-amended soil will be added to reduce erosion of the final cover until
6 vegetation is established. The seed will be broadcast-spread over the final cover
7 using a hght piece of equipment such as a light pickup truck or utiUty vehicle.
8 2.4 Erosion Detection
9 Until the vegetative cover is established, the Landfill Foreman will inspect the
10 completed cap weekly and after each major rain event to ensure that any damage
11 to the capping system is detected and repaired early. This procedure will avoid
12 the need to use larger pieces of equipment to repair eroded areas. After the
13 vegetative cover is established, the Landfill Foreman will inspect the cover
14 monthly. The Landflll Foreman will also inspect the completed cap to determine
15 that the final cover integrity is maintained and that the flow of stormwater is
16 unimpeded. Areas with more than 2 inches of erosion will be regraded, mulched,
17 and seeded manually or mechanically with a light piece of equipment to repair
18 the affected area.
Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
3.0 Constmction Quality Assurance
1 3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
2 The Construction QuaUty Assurance (CQA) Plan will document that the
3 constructed unit meets or exceeds all design criteria in the permit issued by
4 DSHW. The CQA Plan describes: 1) observations, inspections, tests, and
5 measurements to be performed; 2) roles and responsibiUties of various parties in
6 perfonning Construction QuaUty Assurance (CQA) and Construction QuaUty
7 Control (CQQ; and 3) documentation, record keeping, and certifications. A
8 conqjlete copy of the CQA Plan was submitted as Appendix O in the permit
9 appUcation. The specific components of the CQA Plan that address the Final
10 Cover System are included in the foUowing sections.
11 The procedures described in the foUowing sections are taUored to the Bayview
12 LandfiU and are in part excerpted or adopted from EPA/540/R-92/073, Technical
13 Guidance Document; EPA/530/R-93/017, Technical Manual-SoUd Waste
14 Disposal FacUity Criteria; and EPA/600/R-93/182, Technical Guidance
15 Document.
16 • CQA consists of a planned series of observations and tests used to
17 provide quantitative criteria with which to accept the final product. CQC,
18 by contrast, is an ongoing process of measuring and controlling the
19 characteristics of the product in order to meet manufacturer or project
20 specifications.
21 • CQC is a production tool that is employed by the manufacturer of
22 materials and by the contractor instaUing the materials at the site. CQA,
23 by contrast, is a verification tool employed by the District to ensure that
24 the materials and instaUation meet project specifications. CQC is
25 performed independendy of CQA.
26 3.1 Project Team
27 The CQA Plan wiU be implemented under the supervision of a Utah-registered
28 professional engineer. The District wUl designate a registered professional
29 engineer to oversee the execution of the CQA Plan and related field and testing
30 activities. The District wUl also designate a lead individual who wiU be identified
31 as the CQA Officer. The District will use a third-party firm for testing services.
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
1 The CQA Plan and CQC wiU be in:q)lemented through inspection activities that
2 include visual observations, field testing, and evaluation of the test data.
3 Inspection activities wiU typicaUy be concerned with three separate functions:
4 • QuaUty Control (QC) inspection by manufacturers to provide an in-
5 process measure of the product quaUty and its conformance with the
6 project plans and specifications. TypicaUy, the manufacturer wiU be
7 required to provide QC test results to certify that the product conforms to
8 project plans and specifications.
9 • Construction QuaUty Assurance (CQA) testing by the District
10 (Acceptance Inspection) performed usuaUy through the third-party
11 testing firm to provide a measure of the final product quaUty and its
12 conformance with project plans and specifications.
13 • Regulatory Inspection or documentation review, if required, to verify
14 that the final product confonns to aU appUcable codes and regulations.
15 3.2 inspection, Sampling, and Testing
16 CQA or District personnel will sanole the soU to be used for the final cover and
17 perform a grain-size distribution analysis before the cover is placed. If the grain-
18 size distribution is within the range identified on Hgure B-1 in the July 31, 2003,
19 letter from Kleinfelder (see Attachment 2), the material wUl be considered
20 suitable for use in the final cover. A grain-size distribution test wiU be performed
21 for every 5,000 cubic yards of cover material to be placed and wiU be performed
22 early enough before the material is placed so that it will not hinder construction
23 activities. The results of aU tests wUl be recorded on forms similar to those found
24 in Attachment 2.
25 One compaction test wiU be performed for each 10,000 square feet of surface
26 area for each Uft of the final cover. Compaction of the final cover material will be
27 between 75% and 85% ofthe maximum dry density. A nuclear density gage wiU
28 be used to test onsite compaction. The test results wUl be recorded on the forms
29 included as Attachment 3. The locations of tests wiU be shown on a map similar
30 to that provided as Sheet D3 in Attachment 1.
31 The required thickness of the protective cover will be verified by survey methods
32 on an established grid system with at least one verification point per 10,000
33 square feet of surface. Survey stakes wiU be used to confirm the total thickness of
34 the layers of the final cover materials. The average distance between stake points
35 wiU be 100 feet.
Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
BanHBBnHHBiBBnBai
1 3.3 Documentation and Corrective Action
2 Ongoing QC, CQC, and CQA are designed to minimize deficient work and
3 provide for corrective action before an activity is completed. The record-keeping
4 and onsite observation activities are further designed to document compliance or
5 non-compUance and conective action.
6 3.3.1 Documentation
7 Documentation wUl be used to demonstrate the quality of materials and the
8 condition and manner of installation. The overaU documentation wiU include:
9 • Detailed plans and specifications (Attachment 1 and Attachment 4)
10 • Material certification reports with an engineer's review
11 • Records of onsite observations
12 • Onsite material test results
i3 • Material laboratory test results by independent laboratory
14 3.3.2 Corrective Action
15 For work or physical components that do not satisfy plans and specifications, the
16 general conective actions can include:
17 • Removal and replacement
18 • Reworking and corc^acting
19 If materials are found to deviate from specified standards, either they will be
20 rejected or their suitability will be demonstrated by additional testing and
21 analysis. A goal of this CQA Plan is to provide an orderly process of checks
22 before final cover placement is complete to prevent the inclusion of defective or
23 inappropriate materials that must later be removed and replaced.
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
BaaSBBMOII^
Attachment 1
Cell 1 Closure Drawings
Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
Attachment 2
Cover Soil Gradation Requirements and
Testing Forms
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
Attachment 3
Inspection and Compaction Testing
Forms
10 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan August 2005
3.0 Construction Quality Assurance
Attachment 4
Construction Documents Project Manual
August 2005 Cell 1 Closure Construction Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan 11
Attachment 1
Cell 1 Closure Drawings
KR
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
UTAH COUNTY, UTAH
CELL 1 CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION
NOVEMBER 2004
HDR Englrwsring, Inc.
3995 S 700 E
Suit* 100
Salt Lakt City. ITT 84107-2594
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DO COVER SHEET
Dl TOP OF WASTE ELEVATIONS
02 FINAL COVER ELEVATIONS
D3 EROSION DETECTION MARKER LOCATION PLAN
D4 FINAL COVER DETAIL
D5 ' TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCA-:.E
N
100
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
4B00 '
nooo
CXBTNC
CONTOURS
ANCHOR TRENCH
BOUNDARY
UTTER COTNRQL FENCE
PROPOSED NTERMEDtATE
CONTOURS
LUTT OF FLL
SHE GRD
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO TOP OF
WASTE AND NTERkCOIATE COVER. FNAL
COVER ELEVATIONS ARE 34 NCHE5 HKHER.
2. TOPOCRAPHC DATA E PROVBED FROU
OLYMPUS AERIALS, NC, JOC 2. 2004.
BENCHMARKS
BM
3
4
572
573
574
575
576
577
57B
N
B4B2.7SB
7BVS.B39
9B»2.B5S
10095.BB1
4670.902
4756.7*4
Bne.tse
732L3B0
7334.971
E
5605.987
7697.793
3357 J95
B60B.66B
8792.512
3567.636
1185.133
1456.U7
345B.716
ELEVATBN
47n.11
4645.33
47S7J9
4623.28
46X1.47
4737.42
4B06.22
4786.62
4763.08
KK
ISMITSel
Ml l«k> C%. tn M1IT.tM4
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT MANACER
ARCHITECT
CML
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICM.
STRUCTURAL
DESIGNED
DRAWN BY
PROJECT NUMBER
T. WARNER
M. OOEN
J. ZEPEDA
B. GREEN
14005/14081
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
CELL 1 CLOSURE
TOP OF WASTE ELEVATIONS
FILENAME _.\SU04CD01.DCN
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET
D1
\l B50(>\
... k
M9>00
NT 100
KR
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
ARCWTECT
CML
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
DESICNQ)
DRAWN BY
PROJECT NUMBER
T. WARNER
U. OOEN
J. ZEPEDA
B. GREEN
1400S/140B1
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
CELL 1 CLOSURE
N
®
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
4810
EXSTNG
CONTOURS
ANCHOR TRENCH
BOUNDARY
UTTER COTNROL FENCE
PROPOSED FNAL
COVER CONTOURS
LMT OF FIX
NOTFS:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA B PROVIDED FROM OLYMPUS
AERIALS. NC.. JUNE 2, 2004.
2.FNAL COVER CONSISTS OF 34 NCHES OF OLIVE
BROWN SLTY SANO FROM SO(L STOCKPLE AREA
OR OTHER PRE-APPROVED BORROW AREAS. TO
BE LIGHTLY COMPACTED.
BENCHMARKS
BM
3
4
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
N
8492.798
7B13.B39
9992.856
1009S.M1
4670.902
4756.794
B1«.9S6
732L3B0
7334.971
E
5609.967
7897.793
3357J95
880B.868
8792.512
3567.638
UBS. 133
1456.147
5458.716
ELEVATION
4711.11
464SJ3
4757.29
4623.28
4610.47
4737.42
4806.22
4786.62
4763.08
FINAL COVER ELEVATIONS
0 1 2 niEMAME ...\SUO4CO02.DCN
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET
D2
iTSOO
NtXK)
Ni iOO
N
®
200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
4B10
EXISTWG
CONTOURS
ANCHOR TRENCH
BOUNDARY
LITTER CONTROL FENCE
FWAL COVER CONTOURS
EROSION DETECTION MARKER
LIMIT OF FILL
SITE GRD
NOTES'
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA IS PROVIDED FROM OLYMPUS
AERIALS. INC.. JUNE 2. 2004.
2. MARKERS TO BE MSTALLED ON 100-FOOT SPACNG
AFTER FNAL COVER PLACEMENT.
FNAL GRADE
NBKW
6" BRIGHTLY COLORED PLASTIC
FIBERS DOUBLED OVER
PLASTIC TE-WRAP
(2 TYP.)
Vi" DIA METAL ST
EROSION DETECTION MARKER
NTiOO m
KR
ISSUE OATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT MANAGER
ARCHTECT
CML
MECHANICAL
ElECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
DESIGNED
PROJECT NUMBER
T. WARNER
M. OOEN
J. ZEPEDA
14005/140B1
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
CELL 1 CLOSURE
EROSION DETECTION IWIARKER LOCATION PLAN
0 12 nLENAME ...\SU04CD03.DCN
STALE (AS SHOWN
SHEET
D3
EXTEND TOE OF COVER
SLOPE TO EDOE OF
ANCHOR TRENCH MARKEO
WITH PVC PPt
MMMJM OF 34* OUVE-BROWN
SLTY SANO FROM SOL 5T0CKPLE
iWEA,LICHTtY COkPACTED.
EXISTMC
GEOMEMBRANE
TYPE 2 CEOTEXILE •
(LOWER CUSHKM),
EXBTNG
SECTION m AS SHOWN
1
§
ii
KR
BSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT MANACER
ARCHITECT
CML
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
DESIGNED
DRAWN ffr
PROJECT NUMBER
T. WARNER
M. OOEN
J. ZEPEDA
B. GREEN
14005/14081
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
CELL 1 CLOSURE
FINAL COVER DETAIL
..\SU04C005.DCN
SCALE AS SHOWN D4
46*0
100 200
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0 20 40
VERTICAL SCALE
IN FEET
4£*S
Itoo 3*00 S-HIO 9400 10+00 13-K)0 15+00
SECTION m AS SHOWN
?!
it
4700*
f!-EXTEND TOE OF
-COVER-StOPC-TO
:L*<ER
1+00 2+00 3+O0 5+00 6+00 1+00 s+oo 11+00 12+00 16+00 n*oo
4820
4*15
4(10
4805
4*00
4T(S
4TtO
4715
4780
4T75
4TT0
4765
4760
4T55
4750
4745
4740
4T35
4730
4725
4720
4715
4710
4T05
4700
SECTION
AS SHOWN
Tie DOCUMENT IS RELEASED
FOP. THE PURPOSE OF BDDNG.
KR
if
SSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT MANACER
ARCHTCCT
CtVL
MECHANCAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
DESICNED
DRAWN BY
PROJECT NUMBER
T. WARNER
M. OOEN
J. ZEPEDA
B. CREEN
14005/14081
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH UTAH VALLEY
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
BAYVIEW LANDFILL
CELL 1 CLOSURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
_.\SU04CD06.DGN
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET
05
Cov,
"^tt^chm entz
^'' Soil n
^fttis ents
08/01/2003 10:55 F.Kl 18014655788 KLEINFELDER El002
Ui KLEINFELDER
An emplom uimed rrnnpiny
July 31.2003
File No..: 30268.001
Mr. Terry Warner .
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East, Suite, 100
SaltLakeCity. UT'84107
Subject: Source Material Investigation
South Utah Valley Landfill (Bayview Landfill)
Utah County, Utah
Dear Mr. Warner:
In conjunction with Kleinfelder's report dated July 1, 2003, v/c are providing the following
information to summarize the findings of our ircport.
Identification of Suitable Material • • •
Based on laboratory testing and modeling, as presented in Kleinfelder's Meteoric Water Infiltration
Study, one of the predominant soils at Bayview Landfill has been identified as an acceptable
material for the Cell ] protective cap. This soil is classified as a silty sand (SM) to sandy silt (ML),
and is generally olive brown in color. Based on numerous tests performed on this proposed
capping material, this material can generally be characterized by the following grain-sizes:
Sieve Size Percent Passing
No. 4 (1/4 mch) 95-100%
No. 40 70-100%
No. 60 60-95%
No. 200 30-70%
Other materials present at the site differ significantly fi-om this gradation criteria and are generally
easy to screen out based on field logging and gradation tests.
Location of Suitable Material
The proposed suitable cap material was found in the stockpile north of Cell I and in the floor ofthe
excavation for Cell 2. In the three borings drilled in the stockpile north of Cell 1, we found one 5-
foot thick layer in B-3, and a few other pockets of material that did not meet these specifications.
We investigated the materials immediately below the stockpile north of Cell 1 and beneath the
dune sand south of Cell 2 and found only some pockets of material suitable for construction ofthe
protective cap layer in those locations.
HDR/30268.001/SLC3L290 Page 1 of 2 JuJy31,2003
Copyright 2003 Klemfelder, Inc.
08/01/2003 10:56 F.Kl 18014656788 KLEINFELDER (2)003
fy
Two tcst pits excavated within Cell 2 contained 6 to 7 feet ofthe suitable cap material.
Wc recommend that lenses or pockets encountered within the stockpile or under Cell 2 that do not
fall within the gradation criteria identified above be excluded fi-om use in the protective cap layer
unless further testing and analysis is performed to evaluate their suitability.
J
Kleinfelder appreciates this opportunity to aissist you. Ifyou have any questions regarding this
report please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
Respectfiilly,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Renee Zollinger, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Scott Davis, P.E.
Geotechnical Division Manager
cc: Mike Odcn, HDR Engineering
Richard Henry, South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
HDR/30268.001/SLC3L290 Page2of2 Ju]y3J,2O03
CoDvriEhi 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
08/01/2003 10:56 F.U 18014566788 KLEINFELDER ©004
SIEVE ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
coinc Tint
SAND
coAnc medium flBC
HYDROMETER
SILT CLAY
100
90
80
70
< c
I-z
UJ U e!.
UJ
60
50
a.
fe40
30
20
10
3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4
U.S. STANDAJU3 SIEVE SIZHS
iliiIO #16 #30 #60 #100 #200
10 1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE [mnij
0.01
111
\ \\
iTT
\T\
i~i'-r •
-
1 1 1
rjf
J
1
N
1 1
1 1 1
j 1
M 1 N
llfr
\
r Tl n
\ III \ \\\ N x
\ 1
\
IN
llll
1 J j
•
r 1 "I f
III 1
10
20
30
40
50 2
te.
UJ
B.
60 i
o
70
80
90
0.001
Symbol
•
DD
Sample Depth (ft) L/SCS Soil Description USCS
Classification
la KLEINFELDER
PROJECTNO
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
B-1
REPORT of AGGREGATE
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Project
Client:
Material Tnted:
Sourca:
Specification:
Lab No.:
ProjectNo:
Sampled by:
Tested by:
Reviewed by:
Report Dato:
Sample Date
_R*celpt Dato:
Test Date:
SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM Cl 36 AASHTO T27
Slavs SIz*
450 mm (18*)
375 mm (15T
300 mm (12")
250 mm (10*)
225 mm (9")
200 mm (S")
150 mm (B'O
125 mm (5^
100 mm (4")
7S.0 mm (JT
63.0 mm (2.1/2-)
50.0 mm (2")
37.5 mm (1-1/2-)
25.0 mm (1")
19.0 mm (3/4")
12.5mm(1/2T
9.5 ram (3/8*)
6.3 mm (1/4-)
4.75mm (No. 4)
2.36 mm (No. 8)
Z.OO mm (No. 10)
1.18mm (No.16)
0.6OO mm (No.30)
0.425mm (No. 40)
0.300mm (No. 50)
0.180mm (No. 80)
0.150mm (No.lOO)
0.075mm (No. 200)
0.032mm (No.450)
Moitturs Contant, %
ASTMC566 AASHTO T255
Fracturad Faca. %
2(acas
FInanass Modulus (FM)
ASTM C136 AASHTO T27
Accum. %Pauln«
TEST RESULTS |
standard
ASTM C 29
AASHTO T 19
ASTM C 127
AASHTO T 85
ASTM C 128
AASHTO T 84
ASTM D 2419
/>ASHTO T 176
ASTM D4791
AASHTO T 96
AASHTO T290
ASTM C8B
AASHTO T 104
AASHTO T 291
ASTM C 40
AASHTO T 21
AASHTO T 288
ASTM D3080
AASHTO T 236
ASTM D 1557
AASHTO T 180
ASTM 04318
AASHTO T 89/90
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Unit Waight
fc Voids
Coarsa
Specific
Gravity tl
Absorption
Fina
Specific
Gravity &
Absorptton
Sand
Equivalent
Flats,
Elongated
LA
Abrasion
Sulfatas
Soundness
Seundnass
Chlorides
Organic
Impuitties
Minimum
Resistivity
Direct Shear
CD
Compaction
Modlfiad Effort
Uquid UmK,
Plastic Umit &
Plasticity Index
UnH Weight, lbs Jcu.n*
Voids, %>
D^iggad DlaMe QRodded
Bulk Specific Gravity (dry)«J
Bulk Specific Gravity, SSD=::
Apparent Specific Gravity^
Absorption. %«
Bulk Specific Gravity (dry)*
Bilk Spedfic Gravity. SSD*
Apparent Spedfic GiavityK
Absorption, %«=
Sand Equivalent. %«
Rat & Elongated. %<=
Ratio*
Small Coarse Loss. %*
Grading/ Revs.e
ppm.=
Coarse Soundness Loss. %=
Sodium No. of Cydea=
Fine Soundness Loss. %=
Sodium No. of Cydes=
ppm. =
Coarse Aggregate. %=
Fine Aggregaie. %=
OtiiTis.cm.«
Friction Angle.=
Opiimum Moisture, %=
Max. Density, lbsVcu.fL=
Liquid Limlt=
Plastic Limlt=
Plasbelty Index-
RuulU
1
1
1
Mtacb ment 3
'««Pection and
^^^Pacffon Testt
KLEINFELDER
Construction Observation Report
Project Name.
Client
Date.
Project No. DFRNo.
Project Location.
Contractor
Time Arrived
Reviewed by.
Bldg. Permit No.
Date Reviewred..
Time Departed.
Travel Time —
type of Observations D Masonry
D Welding
n Bolting
D Batch plant
n Reinforcement Steel
D Pre-Post Tensioned Tendon
n Foundations
n FlrBproofing
D Metal Decking
D Concrete
D Soil
D Other
Documents Referenced
Summary
D Report Items comply D Repwrt items Incomplete D Report items comply with exceptions
Acknovi/ledged by.
Representing
Page of
F-1 (M3)
KIslnfslder Representative Signature
Kleinfelder Representative Print Name
KLEINFELDER
849 West Levoy Drive, Suite 200, Taylorsville, Utah 64123
Job Name:
Job Number:
Technician:
IN-PLACE NUCLEAR DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Remari^s:
6
z
1
3
S
.2 Test Identification and Location
S
1 De
p
t
h B
e
l
o
w
Su
b
g
r
a
d
e (
f
t
)
1
1
1
c
» .a E
3
3
o
Ma
x
i
m
u
m D
e
n
s
i
t
y
[p
c
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d C
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d C
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
(%
)
Remarks
Client/00000.001 /SLC5M
Copyright 2005 Kleinfelder, Inc. February 8,2005
Attachment 4
Construction Documents Project
Manual
South Utah Valley Solid
Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1
Closure
'y
Construction
Docurnents
Project Manual
November 2004 .
HDR Project No:
014005/014081
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
01060 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
01560 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SPECL^L CONTROLS
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK
02200 EARTHWORK
02260 COVER SOIL PLACEMENT AND FINISHED GRADING
02270 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
02930 SEEDING, SODDING AND LANDSCAPING
APPENDICES
Appendix O: CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
014005.'0140i<l South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
BajTiew Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
Table of Contenis- 1
DIVISION 1 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
&
1 2001/09/14
2 SECTION 01060
3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SCOPE
6 A. These specifications, along with the design drawings, have been prepared to assist the South
7 Utah Valley Solid Waste District (Owner) with the installation ofthe final cover on Cell 1 ofthe
8 Bayview Landfill. The final cover system will be an evaporative soil cap consisting of 34-
9 inches of olive-brown silty sand material meeting the criteria outlined in Appendix N ofthe
10 Bayview Pernut Renewal document submitted to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
11 (UDEQ) in October 2003.
12 It is the intent ofthe Owner to construct the final cover system utilizing its own equipment and
13 personnel. A third party testing finn will perform Quality Control Assurance testing and
14 documentation as outlined in Appendix 0 ofthe Bayview Permit documents. Appendix 0 is
15 included at the end ofthese specifications.
16 1.2 DEFINITIONS
17 A. Owner - South Utah Valley Solid Waste District. SUVSWD will also bc acting as Contractor
18 with respect to the directions set forth in these specifications.
19 B. Engineer - HDR Engineering, Inc.
20 C. Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) - A series of activities and tests performed under the
21 direction of a Utah registered Professional Engineer designed to ensiu-e that the final cover
22 system is constructed in accordance with the provisions ofthe landfill permit and the UDEQ
23 regulations.
24 1.3 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE FLAN (CQAP)
25 A. Acopy ofthe approved CQAP is included at the end ofthese specifications. It was taken fi:x)m
26 Appendix O ofthe Bayview Landfill Permit Example forms for certification and
27 documentation ofthe final cover system are included at the end ofthe CQAP.
28 1.4 TESTING
29 A. Testing will be performed in accordance with the CQAP and UDEQ regulations under the
30 direction of a Utah registered Professional Engineer.
31 1.5 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
32 A. If during the course of construction, evidence of deposits of historical or archeological interest is
33 found, tbe Contractor shall cease operations affecting tbe find and shall notify Owner. No further
34 disturbance ofthe deposits shall ensue until the Contractor has been notified by Owner that
35 Contractor may proceed. Owner will issue a notice to proceed after appropriate authorities have
36 surveyed the find and made a determination to Owner. Compensation to the Contractor, if any,
37 for lost time or changes in construction resulting from the find, shall be determined in
38 accordance with changed or extra work provisions ofthe Contract Documents. The site has been
39 previously investigated and has no known history of historical or archaeological finds.
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
01060-1
1 PART 2 - PRODUCTS - (NOT APPLICABLE TO THiS SECTION)
2 PARTS- EXECUTION-(NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS SECTION)
3 END OF SECTION
014005/ni40i(l South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bay>'iew Landflll: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
01060-2
t-^^
)
1 1994/12/07
2 SECTION 01560
3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SPECIAL CONTROLS
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SUMMARY
6 A. Section Addresses:
7 1. Minimizing the pollution of air, water, or land; control of noise, the disposal of solid waste
8 materials, and protection of deposits of historical or archaeological interest.
9 B. Related Sections include but arc not necessarily limited to:
10 1. Division 1 - Special Conditions.
11 1.2 SUBMITTALS
12 A. Shop Drawings:
13 1. Prior to the start of any construction activities submit:
14 a. A detailed proposal of all methods of control and preventive measures to be utilized for
15 environmental protection.
16 b. A drawing ofthe work area, haul routes, storage areas, access routes and current land
17 conditions including trees and vegetatioiL
18 c. A copy ofthe UPDES permit for storm water discharges from construction activities.
19 d. A copy of a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
20 PART 2 - PRODUCTS - (NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS SECTION)
21 PART 3- EXECUTION
22 3.1 INSTALLATION
23 A Employ and utilize envirorunental protection methods, obtain all necessary permits, and fully
24 observe aU local, state, and federal regulations.
25 B. Land Protection:
26 1. Except for any work or storage area and access routes specifically assigned for the use of
27 the Contractor, the land areas outside the limits of construction shall be preserved in their
28 present condition. Contractor shall confine his construction activities to areas defined for
29 work within the Contract Documents.
30 2. Manage and control all borrow areas, work or storage areas, access routes and embankments
31 to prevent sediment from entering nearby water or land adjacent to the work site.
32 3. Restore all disturbed areas including borrow and haul areas and establish permanent type of
33 locally adaptable vegetative cover.
34 4. Unless earthwork is immediately paved or surfaced, protect all side slopes and backslopes
35 immediately upon completion of final grading.
36 5. Plan and execute earthwork in a manner to minimize duration of exposure of unprotected
3 7 soils.
38 6. Except for areas designated by the Contract Documents to be cleared and grubbed, tbe
39 Contractor shall not deface, injure or destroy trees and vegetation, nor reinove, cut, or
40 disturb them without approval ofthe Engineer. Any damage caused by the Contractor's
41 equipment or operations shall bc restored as nearly as possible to its original condition at the
42 Contractor's expense.
014005/0140f:l Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landflll: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
01560-1
J
1 C. Surface Water Protection:
2 1. Utilize, as necessary, erosion control methods to protect side and backslopes, and minimize
3 the discharge of sediment to the surface water leaving the construction site as soon as rough
4 grading is complete. These controls shall be maintained until the site is ready for final
5 grading and landscaping or imtil they are no longer warranted and concurrence is received
6 fi'om the Engineer. Physically retard the rate and volume of run-on and runoff by:
7 a. Implementing structural practices such as diversion swales, terraces, straw bales, silt
8 fences, berms, storm drain inlet protection, rocked outlet protection, sediment traps and
9 tenporary basins.
10 b. Implementing vegetative practices such as teirqjorary seeding, permanent seeding,
11 mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffers, hydroseeding, anchored erosion control
12 blankets, sodding, vegetated svrales or a combination ofthese methods.
13 c. Providing Construction sites with graveled or rocked access entrance and exit drives
14 and parking areas to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads.
15 2. Discharges fi-om the construction site shall not contain pollutants at concentrations that
16 produce objectionable films, colors, turbidity, deposits or noxious odors in the receiving
17 stream or waterway.
18 D. Solid Waste Disposal:
19 1. Collect solid waste on a daily basis.
20 2. Provide disposal of degradable solid waste onsite or to another approved solid waste
21 disposal site.
22 3. Provide disposal of nondegradable solid waste onsite or to another approved solid waste
23 disposal site or in an altemate manner approved by Engineer and regulatory agencies.
24 4. No building materials wastes or unused building materials shall be buried, dumped, or
25 disposed of on the site.
26 E. Fuel and Chemical Handling:
27 1. Store and dispose ofehemical wastes in a manner approved by regulatory agencies.
28 2. Take special measures to prevent chemicals, fuels, oils, greases, herbicides, and insecticides
29 from entering drainage ways.
30 3. Do not allow water used in onsite material processing, cleanup, and other waste waters to
31 enter a drainage way(s) or stream.
32 4. The Contractor shall provide contaiiunent around fueling and chemical storage areas to
33 ensure that spills in these areas do not reach waters ofthe state.
34 F. Control of Dust:
35 1. The control of dust shall mean that no construction activity shall take place without
36 applying all such reasonable measures as may be required to prevent particulate matter from
37 becoming airbome so that it remains visible beyond the limits of construction. Reasonable
38 measures may include paving, frequent road cleaning, planting vegetative groundcover,
39 application of water or application ofehemical dust suppressants. The use of cheinical
40 agents such as calcium chloride must be of a type approved by the State ofUtah DOT.
41 2. Utilize methods and practices of construction to eliminate dust in full observance of agency
42 regulations.
43 3. The Engineer will determine the effectiveness ofthe dust control program and may request
44 the Contractor to provide additional measures, at no additional cost to Owner.
45 G. Buming:
46 1. Do not bum material on the site. If the Contractor elects to dispose of waste materials by
47 buming, make arrangements for an off-site buming area and conform to all agency
48 regulations.
49 H. Control of Noise:
50 1. Control noise by fitting equipment with appropriate mufflers.
51 I. Completion of Work:
52 1. Upon completion of work, leave area in a clean, natural looking condition.
(ii400.5.'()140fl South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bay^'iew Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
01560-2
1 2. Ensure all signs of temporary construction and activities incidental to construction of
2 required permanent work are removed.
3 3. Submit Notice of Termination per UPDES permit requirements.
4 J. Historical Protection:
5 1. Ifduring the course of construction, evidence of deposits of historical or archaeological
6 interests are found, cease work affecting find and notify Engineer. Do not disturb deposits
7 until written notice fi-om Engineer is given to proceed.
8 END OF SECTION
0
014005/1114081 South Uuh Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Ccl) 1 Closure November 2004
01560-3
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK
)
1 2002/09/12
2 SECTION 02200
3 EARTHWORK
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SUMMARY
6 A Section Includes:
7 1. Earthwork.
8 B. Related Sections include but arc not necessarily limited to:
9 1. Division 1 - Special Conditions.
10 2. Section 02260 - Cover Soil Placement
11 3. Appendix O - CQAP
12 1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE
13 A. Referenced Standards:
14 1. ASTM Intemational (ASTM):
15 a. D698, TestMethod for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard
16 Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft^).
17 b. D1557, Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
18 Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbfyft\2,700 kN-m/m)).
19 c. D2487, Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
20 Classification System).
21 d. D4254, Test Methods for Minimum Index Density of Soils and Calculation of Relative
22 Density.
23 IJ SUBMITTALS
24 A Shop Drawings:
25 1. Product technical data including:
26 a. Acknowledgement that products submitted meet requirements of standards referenced.
27 b. Manufacturer's installation instructions.
28 B. Samples:
29 1. Submit samples and source of fill and backfill materials proposed for use to CQA firm.
30 2. Submit samples and source of borrow materials proposed for use to CQA firm.
31 PART 2- PRODUCTS
32 2.1 MATERULS
33 A. Fill, borrow, and Backfill: Selected material approved by CQA firm fi-om site excavation or
34 from off site borrow.
35 PART 3- EXECUTION
36 3.1 PROTECTION
37 A Protect existing surface and subsurface features on-site and adjacent to site as follows:
38 1. Provide barricades, coverings, or other types of protection necessary to prevent damage to
39 existing items indicated to remain in place.
(114005/014081 Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02200 - 1
&
1 2. Protect and maintain bench marks, monuments or other established reference points and
2 property comers. If disturbed or destroyed, replace at own expense to full satisfaction of
3 Owner and controlling agency.
4 3. Verify location of utilities. Omission or inclusion of utility items does not constitute non-
5 existence or definite location. Secure and examine local utility records for location data.
6 a. Take necessary precautions to protect existing utilities from damage due to any
7 construction activity.
8 b. Repair damages to utility iteins at ovra expense.
9 c. In case of damage, notify Engineer at once so required protective measures may be
10 taken.
11 4. Maintain free of damage, existing sidewalks, structures, and pavement, not indicated to be
12 removed. Any item known or unknown or not properly located that is inadvertentiy
13 damaged shall be repaired to original condition. All repairs to be made and paid for by
14 Contractor.
15 5. Provide full access to public and private premises, fire hydrants, street crossings, sidewalks
16 and other points as designated by Owner to prevent serious interruption of travel.
17 6. Maintain stockpiles and excavations in such a manner to prevent inconvenience or damage
18 to structures on-site or on adjoining property.
19 7. Avoid surcharge or excavation procedures which can result in heaving, caving, or slides.
20 B. Salvageable Items: Carefully remove iteins to be salvaged, and store on Owner's premises
21 unless otherwise directed.
22 C. Dispose of waste materials, legally, onsite or offsite. Buming, as a means of waste disposal, is
23 not permitted.
24 D. Excess soil material shall be stockpiled on-site at locations designated by Owner.
25 3.2 SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING
26 A. The work includes all operations in connection with excavation, borrow, constmction of fills and
27 embankments, rough grading, and disposal of excess materials in connection with the
28 preparation of the site(s) for constmction of the proposed facilities.
29 B. Excavation and Grading: Perform as required by the Contract Drawings.
30 1. Contract Drawings may indicate both existing grade and finished grade required for
31 construction of Project. Stake all units, stmctures, piping, roads, parking areas and walks
32 and establish their elevations. Perform other layout work required. Replace property comer
33 markers to original location if disturbed or destroyed.
34 2. Preparationof ground surface for embankments or fills: Before fill is started, scarify to a
35 minimum depth of 6 IN in all proposed embankment and fill areas. Where ground surface is
36 steeper than one vertical to four horizontal, plow surface in a manner to bench and break up
37 surface so that fill material will bind with existing surface.
38 3. Protection of finish grade: During constmction, shape and drain embankment and
39 excavations. Maintain ditches and drains to provide drainage at all times. Protect graded
40 areas against action of elements prior to acceptance of work. Reestablish grade where
41 settlement or erosion occurs.
42 4. Upon excavation to proposed grades, provide survey documentation of final elevations.
43 C. Borrow: Provide necessary amount of approved fill compacted to density equal to that indicated
44 in this Specification. Include cost of all borrow material in original proposal. Fill material to be
45 approved by CQA firm prior to placement. See Appendix O.
46 D. Constmct embankments and fills as required by the Contract Drawings:
47 1. Constmct embankments and fills at locations and to lines of grade indicated. Completed fill
48 shall correspond to shape of typical cross section or contour indicated regardless of method
49 used to show shape, size, and extent of line and grade of completed work.
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayriew Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02200 - 2
o
1 2. Provide approved fill material which is free from roots, organic matter, trash, frozen
2 material, and stones having maximum dimension greater than 6 IN. Ensure that stones larger
3 than 4 IN are not placed in upper 6 IN of fill or embankment Do not place material in layers
4 greater than 8 IN loose thickness. Place layers horizontally and compact each layer prior to
5 placing additional fill.
6 3. Compact by sheepsfoot, pneumatic rollers, vibrators, or by other equipment if needed to
7 obtain specified density. Control moisture for each layer necessary to meet requirements of
8 conpaction.
9 4. Provide survey documentation of each constmcted lift.
10 3.3 USE OF EXPLOSIVES
11 A. Blasting with any typeof explosive is prohibited.
12 3.4 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL
13 A. Moisture density relations, to be established by the CQA fiTm required for all materials to be
14 oonpacted
15 B. Extent of compaction testing will be as necessary to assure cornpliance with Specifications.
16 C. Give minimum of 24 HR advance notice to CQA firm when ready for oonpaction or subgrade
17 testing and inspection.
18 D. Should any compaction density test or subgrade inspection fail to meet Specification
19 requirements, perform corrective work as necessary.
20 3.5 COMPACTION DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
21 A. Obtain approval from CQA firm with regard to suitability of soils and acceptable subgrade prior
22 to subsequent operations.
23 B. Provide dewatering system necessary to successfully corrplete compaction and constmction
24 requirements.
25 C. Remove frozen, loose, wet, or soft material and replace with approved material as directed by
26 Engineer, or CQA firm.
27 D. Stabilize subgrade with well graded granular materials as directed by CQA firm.
28 E. Assure by results of testing that compaction densities comply with the following requirements
29 (See Appendix N and 0 of 2004 permit renewal):
30 1. Sitework:
31
32 LOCATION COMPACTION DENSITY
33
34 UNPAVED AREAS:
35
36 Cohesive soils 95 percent, standard proctor density,
37 ASTM D698
38 Cohesionless soils 70 percent relative density
39 per ASTM D4253 and D4254
40 F. Provide and uniformly incorporate sufficient moisture to achieve specified compaction density.
41 3.6 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
42 A. Erosion Control: Conduct work to minimize erosion of site. Constmct stilling areas to settle and
43 detain eroded material. Remove eroded material washed off site. Clean streets daily of any
44 spillage of dirt, rocks or debris from equipment entering or leaving site.
45 END OF SECTION
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landflll: Cell 1 Qosure November 2004
02200 - 3
:f
1 2001/09/17
2 SECTION 02260
3 COVER SOIL PLACEMENT AND FINISHED GRADING
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SUMMARY
6 A. Section Includes:
7 1. Cover soil placement and finished grading.
8 B. Related Sections include but are not necessarily limited to:
9 1. Division 1 - Special Conditions.
10 2. Section 02200 - Earthwork.
11 3. Section 02270 - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.
12 4. Section 02930 - Seeding, Sodding and Landscaping.
13 C. Location of Work: All areas within limits of grading and all areas outside limits of grading
14 which are disturbed in the course ofthe work.
15 1.2 SUBMITTALS
16 A. Shop Drawings:
17 1. Project Data: Test reports for fumished topsoil.
18 1.3 SITE COND mONS
19 A. Verify amount of cover soil stockpiled and determine amount of additional cover soil, if
20 necessary to complete work.
21 PART 2- PRODUCTS
22 2.1 MATERIALS
23 A. Cover soil:
24 1. Original surface soil typical of the area.
25 2. Existing cover soil stockpiled.
26 3. Capable of supporting native plant growth with compost or other soil amendments.
27 2.2 TOLERANCES
28 A. Finish Grading Tolerance: 0.1 FT plus/minus from required elevations. 0.1 FT plus/0.0 FT
29 minus from all required thicknesses.
30 PARTS- EXECUTION
31 3.1 PREPARATION
Correct, adjust and/or repair rough graded areas.
Cut off mounds and ridges.
Fill gullies and depressions.
Perform other necessary repairs.
Bring all sub-grades to specified contours, even and properly contacted.
37 B. Loosen surface to depth of 2 EN, minimum.
C!4005 •Dl4081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02260 - I
32
33
34
35
36
A. C
1
2
3
4
'•3
1 C. Remove all stones and debris over 2 IN in any dimension.
2 3.2 ROUGH GRADE REVIEW
3 A. Review by Engineer or CQA firm.
4 3.3 PLACING COVER SOIL
5 A. Do not place when subgrade is wet or frozen enough to cause clodding.
6 B. Spread to compacted depth of 4 IN for all disturbed earth areas.
7 C. If cover soil stockpiled is less than amount required for work, fumish additional cover soil.
8 D. Provide finished surface free of stones, sticks, or other material 1 IN or more in any dimension.
9 E. Provide finished surface smooth and tme to required grades.
10 F. Restore stockpile area to condition of rest of finished work.
11 3.4 ACCEPTANCE
12 A. Upon completion of cover soil placement, obtain Engineer's acceptance of grade and surface.
13 B. Make test holes where directed to verify proper placement and thickness of cover soil.
14 END OF SECTION
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02260 - 2
1 1996/08/09
2 SECTION 02270
3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SUMMARY
6 A. Section Includes:
7 1. Soil erosion and sediment control.
8 B. Related Sections include but are not necessarily limited to:
9 1. Division 1 - Special Conditions.
10 1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE
11 A. Referenced Standards:
12 1. Erosion control standards: "Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment
13 Control in Developing Areas" by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
14 Service, College Park, Maryland.
15 PART 2- PRODUCTS
16 2.1 MATERIALS
17 A. Straw bales, twine tied.
18 B. Sediment Control Fence Rock for stabilized constmction exit
19 C. Grass Seed: Annual ryegrass, or approved equal.
20 PARTS- EXECUTION
21 3.1 PREPARATION
22 A. Prior to General Stripping Topsoil and Excavating:
23 . 1. Install perimeter dikes and swales.
24 2. Excavate and shape sediment basins and traps.
25 3. Constmct pipe spillways and install stone filter where required.
26 4. Machine compact all berms, dikes and embankments for basins and traps.
27 5. Install straw bales where indicated.
28 a. Provide two stakes per bale.
29 b. First stake angled toward previously installed bale to keep ends tight against each other.
30 3.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
31 A. Maintain Ditches, Swales, Berms, Sediment Control Fences, Stabilized Constmction Exit:
32 1. Inspect regularly especially after rainstorms.
33 2. Repair or replace damaged or missing items.
34 3. Remove and properly dispose of excessive accumulations of sediment to maintain integrity
35 of controls.
36 B. Do not disturb existing vegetation (grass and trees).
37 3.3 NEAR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
Ci) 4005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landflll: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02270 - 1
1 A Grade to finished or existing grades.
2 B. Fine grade all remaining earth areas.
3 C. Sow tenporary grass cover over all exposed areas outside Final Cover area.
4 1. Rate: Vi LBS /1000 S.F.
5 2. Reseed as required until 70% stand of grass is achieved.
6 END OF SECTION
>
0)4005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02270 - 2
1 2002/01/14
2 SECTION 02930
3 SEEDING, SODDING AND LANDSCAPING
4 PART 1 - GENERAL
5 1.1 SUMMARY
6 A Section Includes:
7 1. Seeding, sodding and landscape planting:
8 a. Soil preparation.
9 b. Installation of erosion detection markers (blue tops or whiskers).
10 B. Related Sections include but are not necessarily limited to:
11 1. Division 1 - Special Conditions.
12 2. Section 02260 - Cover Soil Placement and Finished Grading.
13 1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE
14 A. Referenced Standards:
15 1. American Standard for Nursery Stock (ASNS).
16 2. ASTM Intemational (ASTM):
17 a. D997, Drop Test for Loaded Cylindrical Containers.
18 b. D2028, Standard Specification for Cutback Asphalt.
19 3. Standard Methods ofthe Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.
20 4. United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA):
21 a. Federal Seed Act
22 13 SUBMIFTALS
23 A. Shop Drawings:
24 1. Product technical data including:
25 a. Acknowledgement that products submitted meet requirements of standards referenced.
26 b. Manufacturer's installation instmctions.
27 c. Signed copies of vendor's statement for seed mixture required, stating botanical and
28 common name, place of origin, strain, percentage of purity, percentage of germination,
29 and amount of Pure Live Seed (PLS) per bag.
30 d. Type of herbicide to be used during first growing season to contain annual weeds and
31 application rate.
32 2. Certification:
33 a. Certify each container of seed delivered will be labeled in accordance with Federal and
34 State Seed Laws and equals or exceeds Specification requirements.
35 3. Other documents:
36 a. Copies of invoices for fertilizer used on Project showing grade fiimished, along with
37 certification of quality and warranty. If Engineer determines fertilizer requires sampling
38 and testing to verify quality, testing will be done at Contractor's expense, in accordance
39 with current methods of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Upon
40 completion of Project, a final check of total quantities of fertilizer used will be made
41 against total area seeded. If minimum rates of application have not been met,
42 Contractor will be required to distribute additional quantities to make up minimum
43 application specified.
44 4. Schematic of erosion detection markers (blue tops or whiskers).
45 1.4 SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING
46 A. Installation Schedule:
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayxiew Landfill: Cell I Closure November 2004
02930 - 1
3
1 1. Provide schedule showing when groundcovers and other plant materials are anticipated to
2 be planted.
3 2, Show schedule of when lavra type and other grass areas are anticipated to be planted.
4 3. Indicate planting schedules in relation to schedule for irrigation system installation, finish
5 grading and topsoiling.
6 4. Indicate anticipated dates Engineer will be required to review installation for initial
7 acceptance and final acceptance.
8 B. Pre-installation Meeting:
9 1. Meet with Engineer and other parties as necessary to discuss schedule and methods, unless
10 otherwise indicated by Engineer.
11 PART 2- PRODUCTS
12 2.1 MATEIUALS
13 A. Native Grass Seeding: Certified seed of locally adapted strains.
14
% Mix
0.50%
1.50%
3.50%
17.50%
17.50%
3.00%
4.00%
16.25%
16.25%
20.00%
Type of Grass
Sand Drop Seed
Alkali Sacaton
Blue Grama
Blue bunch wheat grass
Indian Rice Grass
Sandberg blue grass
Sheep fuscue
slender wheat grass
stream bank wheat grass
western wheat grass
100.00%
15
16
17 B. Asphalt Binder: Emulsified asphalt per State specifications.
18 C. Water Water free from substances harmful to grass or sod growth. Provide water from source
19 approved prior to use.
20 D. Erosion Detection Markers.
21 PARTS- EXECUTION
22 3.1 SOIL PREPARATION
General:
Liinit preparation to areas which will be planted soon after.
Provide facilities to protect and safeguard all persons on or about premises.
Protect existing trees designated to remain.
Verify location and existence of all underground utilities. Take necessary precaution to
protect existing utilities from damage due to constmction activity. Repair all damages to
utility items at sole expense.
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02930 - 2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
A. G
1.
2.
3.
4.
':f
1 5. Provide facilities such as protective fences and/or watchmen to protect work from
2 vandalism. Contractor to be responsible for vandalism tmtil acceptance of work in whole or
3 in part.
4 B. Preparation for Lawn-Type Seeding, Sprigging, Plugging or Sodding:
5 1. Loosen surface to minimum depth of 4 IN. Remove stones over 1 IN in any dimension and
6 sticks, roots, mbbish, and other extraneous matter.
7 2. Prior to applying fertilizer, loosen areas to be seeded with a double disc or other suitable
8 device if the soil has become hard or compacted. Correct any surface irregularities in order
9 to prevent pocket or low areas which will allow water to stand.
10 3. Distribute fertilizer uniformly over areas to be seeded:
11 a. For lawn-type seeding: 30 LBS per 1000 SF.
12 b. For pasture seeding: 200 LBS per acre.
13 4. Handspread fertilizer on top of soil surface.
14 5. Grade lawn areas to a smooth, even surface with a loose, uniformly fine texture. Roll and
15 rake, remove ridges and fill depressions, as required to meet finish grades. Limit fine
16 grading to areas which can be planted soon after preparation.
17 6. Restore lawn areas to specified condition if eroded or otherwise disturbed after fine grading
18 and before planting.
19 3.2 INSTALLATION
20 A. Lawn-Type and Pasture Seeding:
21 1. Do not use seed which is wet moldy, or otherwise damaged.
22 2. Perform seeding work upon completion of final cover installation, unless otherwise
23 approved by Engineer.
24 3. Employ satisfactory methods of sowing using mechanical power-driven drills or seeders, or
25 mechanical hand seeders, or other approved equipment.
26 4. Distribute seed evenly over entire area at rate of application not less than 4 LBS (PLS) of
27 seed per 1000 SF, 50 percent sown in one direction, remainder at right angles to first
28 sowing.
29 5. Stop work when work extends beyond most favorable planting season for species
30 designated, or when satisfactory results cannot be obtained because of drought, high winds
31 excessive moisture, or other factors. Resume work only when favorable conditions develop.
32 6. Lightiy rake seed into soil followed by light rolling or cultipacking.
33 7. Immediately protect seeded areas against erosion by mulching. Spread mulch in continuous
34 blanket using 1-1/2 tons per acre to a depth of 4 or 5 straws.
35 8. Protect seeded slopes against erosion with erosion netting or other methods approved by
36 Engineer. Protect seeded areas against traffic or other use by erecting barricades and placing
37 waming signs.
38 9. Iinmediately following spreading mulch, anchor mulch using a rolling coulter or a 7
39 wheatland land packer having wheels with V-shaped edges to force mulch into soil surface, \
40 or apply evenly distributed emulsified asphalt at rate of 10-13 GAL/1000 SF. SS-1 emulsion->'
41 in accordance with ASTM D997 or RC-1 cutback asphalt in accordance wth ASTM D2028
42 are acceptable. If mulch and asphalt are applied in one treatment, use SS-1 emulsion with
43 penetration test range between 150-200. Use appropriate shields to protect adjacent site
44 improvements.
45 3.3 MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT
46 A. General:
47 1. Begin maintenance of planted areas immediately after each portion is planted and continue
48 until final acceptance or for a specific time period as stated below, whichever is the longer.
49 2. Provide and maintain temporary piping, hoses, and watering equipment as required to
50 convey water from water sources and to keep planted areas uniformly moist as required for
51 proper growth.
52 3. Protection of new materials:
014005/014081 South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02930-3
1 a. Provide barricades, coverings or other types of protection necessaiy to prevent damage
2 to existing improvements indicated to remain. Repair and pay for all damaged items.
3 4. Replace imacceptable materials with materials and methods identical to the original
4 specifications unless otherwise approved by the Engineer.
5 5. Avoid driving heavy equipment on Final Cover to the maximum extent practicable.
6 B. Seeded or Sodded Lawns:
7 1. Maintain seeded lawns: 90 days, minimum, after installation and review of entire project
8 area to be planted.
9 2. Maintenance period begins at conpletion of planting or installation of entire area to be
10 seeded or sodded.
11 3. Engineer will rcNaew seeded or sodded lawn area after installation for initial acceptance.
12 4. Maintain lawns by watering, fertilizing, weeding, mowing, trimming, and other operations
13 such as rolling, regrading, and replanting as required to establish a smooth, uniform lawn,
14 free of weeds and eroded or bare areas.
15 5. Lay out temporary lawn watering system and ari-angc watering schedule to avoid walking
16 over muddy and newly seeded areas. Use equipment and water to prevent puddling and
17 water erosion and displacement of seed or mulch.
18 6. Mow lawns as soon as there is enough top growth to cut with mower set at recommended
19 height for principal species planted. Repeat mowing as required to maintain height. Do not
20 delay mowing until grass blades bend over and become matted. Do not mow when grass is
21 wet Time initial and subsequent mowings as required to maintain a height of 1-1/2 to 2 IN.
22 Do not mow lower than 1 -1 /2 IN.
23 7. Remulch with new mulch in areas where mulch has been disturbed by wind or maintenance
24 operations sufficiently to nullify its purpose. Anchor as required to prevent displacement.
25 8. Unacceptable plantings are those areas that do not meet the quality ofthe specified material,
26 produce the specified results, or were not installed to the specified methods.
27 9. Replant bare areas using same materials specified.
28 10. Engineer will review final acceptability of installed areas at end of maintenance period.
29 11. Maintain repaired areas until remainder of maintenance period or approved by Engineer,
30 whichever is the longer period.
31 3.4 INSTALLATION OF EROSION DETECTION MARKERS
32 Erosion detection markers consisting of steel rods with attached plastic fibers arc to be installed
33 after placement of Final Cover and seeding has been performed. This may be accomplished in
34 phases as portions are conpleted. Tbe location ofthe markers shall be on 100-foot spacings
35 across Cell 1 in the approximate locations shown on the design drawings. The markers shall be
36 driven into the final cover so the plastic fibers are just btneath the finished surface.
37
38 The location ofthe markers will be surveyed and provided to the UDEQ along with the other
39 constmction certification documents.
40 END OF SECTION
014005/014081 South Uuh Valley Solid Waste District
Baj-view Landfill: Cell 1 Closure November 2004
02930 - 4
APPENDIX O: CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
ASSURANCE PLAN
./.;
&=ii\
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
SUVSWD Bayview
Class I Landfill Permit Modification
Submitted February 2004
Prepared By:
'J' HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
SUVSWD Bayview
Class I Landfill Permit Modification - Appendix O
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 CQA AND CQC TEAM 2
2.0 INSPECTION, SAMPLING, TESTING 3
2.1 Subgrade 4
2.2 Geotextiles 4
2.3 Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) 4
2.3.1 Pre-installation 5
2.3.2 Delivery, Storage, and Handling 7
2.3.3 Installation 7
2.4 Geomembranes 8
2.4.1 Trial Seams 10
2.4.2 Non-Destructive Seam Testing 10
2.4.3 Destructive Sezun Testing 11
2.4.4 Geomembrane CQA Observation 12
2.5 Leachate Collection Systems 12
2.5.1 Protective Cover/Leachate Collection and Pipe Bedding Materials 13
2.5.2 Construction 13
2.6 Electrica] Integrity Survey 14
2.7 Final Cover Systems 15
2.8 Surveying 16
3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 16
3.1 Corrective Action 17
3.2 Documentation 17
Tables
Table 0-1: Material Testing Methods and Frequency 5
Table 0-2: Standard Tests on GCL Matenal 6
Attachments
Attachment 0-1: Example Forms for Cell Construction and Closure
Attachment 0-2: Final Cover Grain Size Distribution
Class I Lardfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix O Page i
South Ulah Valley Solid Wasle District
INTRODUCTION
The Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP) will document that the constructed unit meets or
exceeds all design criteria contained in the permit, issued by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ). The CQAP describes: 1) observations, inspections, tests and
measurements to be performed; 2) roles and responsibilities of various parties in performing
Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) and Construction Quality Control (CQC); and 3)
documentation, record keeping and certifications.
The procedures described below are tailored to the Bayview Landfill Disposal Site (Site) and are in
part excerpted or adopted from EPA/540/R-92/073 Technical Guidance Document, EPA 530-R-93-
017 Technical Manual - SoHd Waste Disposal Facility Criteria and EPA/600/R-93/182 Technical
Guidance Document. The specific site components addressed include:
1) Subgrade;
2) Geotextiles;
3) Geosynthetic Clay Liners;
4) Geomembranes;
5) Leachate Collection System; and
6) Final Cover Systems.
CQA consists of a planned series of observations and tests used to provide quantitative criteria
with which to accept the final product. CQC is an ongoing process of measuring and controlling the
characteristics ofthe product in order to meet manufacturer or project specifications.
CQC is a production tool that is employed by the manufacturer of materials and by the contractor
instalhng the materials at the site. CQA, by contrast, is a verification tool employed by the South Utah
Valley Solid Waste District (SUVSWD) to ensure that the materials and installation meet project
specifications. CQC is performed independently of the CQA. For example, while a geomembrane
liner installer will perform CQC testing of field seams, the CQA program will require independent
CQA testing of those same seams by a third-party inspector.
Class 1 L^indfili Pemiit Modificalion Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 1
Soulh Ulah Valley Solid Wasle District
)
1.0 CQA AND CQC TEAM
The CQAP will be implemented under the supervision of a Utah registered professional engineer. The
SUVSWD will designate a registered professional engineer to oversee the execution of the
CQAP and related field and testing activities. The SUVSWD will also designate a lead
individual who will be identified as the CQA officer. The SUVSWD may elect to utilize contract
firms for monitoring, observation and testing services.
The CQAP and CQC plan will be implemented through inspection activities that include visual
observations, field testing, and evaluation of the test data. Inspection activities will typically be
concemed with four separate functions:
• Quality Control (QC) inspection by the manufacturer to provide an in-process measure of
the product quality and its conformance with the project plans and specifications. Typically,
the manufacturer will be required to provide QC test results to certify that the product
conforms to project plans and specifications.
• Construction Quality Control (CQC) inspection by the contractor to provide an in process
measure of construction quality and conformance with the project plans and specifications,
thereby allowing the contractor to correct the construction process if the quality of the
product is not meeting the specifications and plans.
• Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) testing by the SUVSWD (Acceptance Inspection)
performed usually through the third-party testing firm to provide a measure of the final product
quality and its conformance with project plans and specifications.
• Regulatory Inspection or documentation review, if required, to verify that the final
product conforms with all applicable codes and regulations.
The responsibilities of the SUVSWD's CQA officer and the CQA officer's staff vary by physical
component being constructed. The personnel will be assigned responsibilities based upon
knowledge and competence to perform CQA in a specific area. Prior to starting an activity, the CQA
Class I Landflll Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 2
South Utah Valley Solid Wasle District
officers or individuals within the CQA officer's staff will be identified so that the SUVSWD, UDEQ
or others can verify that individual's qualifications.
Activities of the CQA officer are essential to document quahty of construction. The CQA
officer's responsibihties and those ofthe CQA officer's staff members may include:
• Communicating with the contractor;
• Interpreting and clarifying project drawings and specifications with the designer, SLTVSWD
and contractor;
• Recommending acceptance or rejection by the SUVSWD of work completed by the
construction contractor;
• Submitting blind samples (e.g., duplicates and blanks) for analysis by the contractor's
testing staff or one or more independent laboratories, as applicable;
• Notifying SUVSWD of construction quality problems not resolved on-site in a timely
manner;
i^i:) • Observing the testing equipment, personnel, and procedures used by the construction
contractor to check for detrimentally significant changes over time;
• Reviewing the construction contractor's quality control recording, maintenance, summary,
and interpretations of test data for accuracy and appropriateness; and
• Reporting to the SUVSWD on monitoring results.
The SUVSWD will have the authority to stop work or reject work if problems or deficiencies are
encountered.
2.0 INSPECTION, SAMPLING, TESTING
The following is an overview of CQA and CQC activities, by major physical components, to be
undertaken before, during or after construction. Reference should be made throughout this
discussion to Table O-l for a more detailed list of major material testing methods and frequency. Table
0-1 frequency may be adjusted based upon final material sources, field observations, and results of
testing during construction. Additional QC, CQC, and CQA provisions and standards are anticipated to
Class 1 Landfill Permit Modificalion Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix O Page 3
South Utah Valley Solid Waste Districi
be included in final construction plans and specifications and for minor system components. Final
construction plans and specifications will further delineate sampling strategies, including methods of
determining sample locations, frequency of sampling, acceptance and rejection criteria, and methods of
implementing corrective measures.
2.1 Subgrade
Final construction plans and specifications along with contractors CQC program will address
preparation and compaction of subgrade material to the required bearing strength.
2.2 Geotextiles
Prior to installation, the contractor, material installer, and CQA person will inspect the subgrade
to certify its adequacy. During construction, geotextile placement, including coverage and 12-
inch minimum overlap and anchorage, will be observed and documented. In addition to field
observations, geotextile sampling and testing for tensile strength and AOS may be perfonned to
document that the geotextile meets the design specifications.
2.3 Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)
This section includes the requirements for selection, installation, and protection of geosynthetic
clay hner (GCL).
Class I L,andfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix 0 Page 4
South Utah Valley Solid Wasle District
Table 0-1: Material Testing Methods and Frequency
3
Material Tested
Borrow Source for
Protective Cover / Leachate
Material
Granular Layers
Geomembrane
Piping
Parameter
Hydraulic Conductivity
Fines
% Coarse/Fines (Pipe Bedding
Layer surrounding leachate
collection pipe only)
Total Thickness
Soil Placement/Compaction
Material Thickness
Leaking Seam
Defect/Punctures
Shear
Peel
Leakage on non-pressure
Alignment
Test Method
ASTM D2434
ASTM D422
ASTMC 136
Measurement
Visual Observation
ASTMD
1593/D5199
Vacuum testing or
pressure testing
Visual inspection
ASTM D 4437
ASTM D 4437
Low pressure air
Visual Observation
Minimum Testing
Frequency
4 per material type
1 per 3,000 cubic yards
1 per 1.500 yd'
4 per acre
Full Coverage
once per roll
100%ofall field welded
seams
100% of all seams and liner
surface
Minimum 500 feet plus twice
daily during installation
Minimum 500 feet plus twice
daily during installation
All non-slotted sections
All sections of pipe
Notes: Tests listed are for major components. Additional material standards and CQC/CQA tests
will be specified in final design including CQC and CQA for other components of the
construction. Storage handling preservation and transport of soil samples will be done in accordance
with ASTM D 4220.
2.3.1 Pre-installation
The following must be submitted to the CQA personnel for approval prior to GCL deployment.
• The supplier or GCL manufacturer results for standard tests described in Table 0-2.
• Written verification that the GCL meets the properties listed in Table 0-2.
Class I Landfill Permit Modification
Bayview Landfill
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
Revision 1
Appendix 0
February 2004
Past 5
.j
Written certification that the GCL manufacturer has continuously inspected each roll of
GCL for the presence of needles and other defects and found GCL to be defect free.
Written certification from the GCL manufacturer that the bentonite will not shift during
transportation or installation thereby causing thin spots in the body of the GCL.
Quality control certificates signed by a responsible party of the GCL manufacturer for
each roll delivered to the site. Each certificate will include roll identification numbers
and results of all quality control tests. At a minimum, results will be given for tests
corresponding to Table 0-2. The bentonite and textile suppliers will each certify the
respective properties under the Manufacturer's Quality Control. The GCL manufacturer
will also perfonn the bentonite tests described under the Manufacturer's Quality Control
and third-party tests.
Table 0-2: Standard Tests on GCL Material
TEST
Manufacturer's
Ouality Control
Confonnance
Testing by 3"*
Party Independent
Laboratory
rrEM
Bentonite'*"
Geotextile
GGL Product
GCL Product
TYPE OF TEST
Free Swell'**
nuid 1 nss'**
Grab Tensile Strength"^
MassAJnIt Area
Grab Tensile Strength'^
Clay Mass/Unit Area"='
Pemieabllity'"'
Lap Joint Permeabiiity""*^
Clay MassAJnit Area"^
Permeability'"'"^
Direct Shear '^°'
STANDARD
TEST METHOD
ASTM D 5890
ASTM D 5891
ASTM D 4aT? .
ASTM D 5261
ASTM D 4632
ASTM D 5993
ASTM D 5084
ASTM D 5084
ASTM D 5993
ASTM D 5084
ASTM D 5321
FREQUENCY OF TESTING
per 50 tons and every truck or railcar
per 50 tons and every truck or railcar
per 200.000 n*
per 200,000 «•
per 200,000 ft"
per 40.000 tt*
per week for each production line'^
Per each material and lap type
at least 1 test per 100,000 ft* and
ASTM D 4,^>>4 procedure A
per 100,000 ft*
Per GCL/adjoining material type
Notes:
A - Tests to be perfonned on twntonite before incorporation into GCL. Free swell shall have a minimum test value of 24 ml. Fluid loss
wnll have a maximum value of 18 ml.
B - For geotextile backed products only. Geotextiles will meet minimum manufacturer's criteria.
C - Minimum test value of O.B IbTft* on an oven dry basis {zero percent moisture).
D-1 X IO"* m'/m*/sec or as required by the permrt.
E • Report last 20 penneabil'ity values, ending on production data of supplied GCL.
F • Test at confining/consolidating pressures simulating field conditions.
G - Not applicable for slopes of 7H: IV or flatter. Testing must t>e on material in hydrated state unless GCL is to include geomembrane
on both sides of GCL.
Class I Landfill Permit Modification
Bayview Landfill
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Dislrict
Revision 1
Appendix 0
February 2004
Page 6
2.3.2 Delivery, Storage, and Handling
Packing and Shipping
The GCL will be supplied in rolls wrapped individually in relatively impermeable and opaque
protective covers. The GCL rolls will be marked with the following information:
• Manufacturer's name
• Product Identification
• Roll number
• Roll dimensions
• Roll weight
Storage and Protection
The rolls will be stored on-site by the Contractor until installed. After Contractor mobilization,
he will store and protect GCL from dirt, water, ultraviolet light exposure, and other sources of
damage. He will also preserve the integrity and readability of GCL roll labels. Rolls must not be
stacked higher than recommended by the manufacturer to preclude thinning of bentonite at
contact points.
J 2.3.3 Installation
The GCL will be handled in a manner to ensure that it is not damaged as recommended by the
GCL manufacturer. At a minimum, the following will by complied with:
• On slopes, anchor the GCL securely and deploy it down the slope in a controlled manner.
• Weight the GCL with sandbags or equivalent in the presence of wind.
• Cut GCL with a cutter (hook blade), scissors, or other approved device. Protect adjacent
materials from potential damage due to cutting of GCL.
• Prevent damage to underlying layers during placement of GCL.
• During GCL deployment, do not entrap in or beneath GCL, stones, trash, or moisture that
could damage GCL.
• Visually examine entire GCL surface. Ensure no potentially harmful foreign objects,
such as needles, are present.
• Do not place GCL in the rain or at times of impending rain.
; • Do not place GCL in areas of ponded water.
Class I Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 7
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Dislrict
• Replace GCL that is hydrated before placement of overlying geomembrane and cover
soil.
• In general, only deploy GCL that can be covered during that day by geomembrane.
• For needle-punched GCLs, add granular bentonite to the overlapped areas at the
manufacture's specified rate.
• Avoid dragging GCL on the subgrade.
• Vehicular traffic other than low contact pressure vehicles such as smooth-tired ATV's or
golf carts must not be allowed on deployed GCL.
• Installation personnel must not smoke or wear damaging shoes when working on GCL.
Overlaps
The GCL must be overlapped to the manufacturer's reconmiendations, which will vary
according to seam location and climatic conditions. For needle-punched GCLs, apply granular
bentonite to overlapped area at a rate required by the manufacturer. At sumps, overlap GCLs at
least 1 foot. At the bottom of the collection sumps, unroll an extra layer of GCL on top of
previously installed GCL. Avoid placing seams on top of underlying seams.
In general, horizontal seams and mid-slope anchor trenches are not allowed on side slopes.
However, if prohibitive slope lengths cannot otherwise be overcome, the CQA personnel may
approve a glue-bonded seam.
Defects and Repairs
Repair all flaws or damaged areas by placing a patch of the same material extending at least 1
foot beyond the flaw or damaged area. Add granular bentonite to the overlapped edges of the
patch at the manufacturer's specified rate.
2.4 Geomembranes
Source testing and material quality control testing will be performed prior to material
installation. These CQC steps involve manufacture, fabrication, storage at the factory, shipment
and storage at the Site of the geomembrane and geotextiles. Manufacturers will be required to
Class 1 Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 Febmary 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page S
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Dislrict
certify thickness, width, length as well as chemical/resin formulation and material properties in
accordance with National Sanitation Foundation, Standard 54 (NSF-54). Manufacturers will be
required to submit infonnation demonstrating testing of any factory fabricated seams.
Information may be required on factory storage and shipment where concems are identified. At
the site, records will be maintained on any material received (especially material received in
damaged condition) and on on-site storage and handling practices. Lining materials dehvered to
the site will be inspected for damage by the installer, unloaded, and stored. Materials will be
stored in accordance with the manufacturer's recorrunendation. The storage will be such that:
• Unloading of rolls at the job site's temporary storage location will be such that no damage
to the lining materials occur;
• Pushing, sliding or dragging of rolls of lining materials will not be permitted;
• Temporary storage at the job site will be in an area where standing water cannot
accumulate at any time;
• The ground surface will be suitably prepared such that no stones or other rough objects
which could damage the hning materials are present;
• Temporary storage of rolls of lining materials in the field will not be so high that crushing
of the core or flattening of the rolls occur; and
• Suitable means of securing the rolls will be used such that shifting, abrasion or other
adverse movement does not occur.
Prior to installation, the contractor, material installer, and CQA person will inspect the
geomembrane to certify its adequacy. During deployment, the CQA personnel, the installer, and
possibly the manufacturer's representative will observe the layout, ballasting, seaming and
covering. Records will be maintained to verify proper panel layout, weather related impacts (e.g.
wind) and material handling. Once deployed, the entire roll or panel will be inspected for
blemishes, scratches, and imperfections. The CQA person will spot check material thickness and
observe field seaming and seam testing.
Installation of geomembrane liners will be in conformance with a quality assurance/quality
control plan. Tests perfonned to evaluate the integrity of geomembrane seams will be both
Class I Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix 0 Page 9
South Utah Valley Solid Wasle District
"destructive" and "non-destructive." All seams failing the non-destructive or destructive tests
will be repaired.
2.4.1 Trial Seams
Trial seams will be done twice daily during installation to demonstrate pre-qualifying experience
for personnel, equipment and procedures. Trial seams will be performed on the identical
geomembrane material under the same climatic conditions as the actual field production seams
will be made. Trial seams will also be made whenever personnel or equipment are changed, and
when climatic conditions reflect wide changes in geomembrane temperature or when other
conditions occur that could affect seam quality.
2.4.2 Non-Destructive Seam Testing
Non-destructive test methods will be conducted in the field on an in-place geomembrane. These
test methods determine the integrity of the geomembrane field seams. All seams will be non-
destructively tested. Non-destructive test methods may include vacuum box, or pressurized dual
seam tests. Seam sections that fail non-destructive tests will be carefully dehneated, patched or
re-seamed, and retested. For failing fusion welds, the outer seam lip may be extrusion fillet-
welded to the parent sheet or cap stripped over the entire edge. For failing extrusion welds, a cap
strip repair will be used. All repaired areas will be non-destructively tested by vacuum box
methods. Large patches or re-seamed areas may be subjected to destructive test procedures for
quality assurance purposes. The final plans and specifications will describe the degree to which
non-destructive and destructive test methods will be used in evaluating failed portions of non-
destructive seam tests. For the 60-mil HDPE, double-wedge thermal seams will be pressure
tested at a maximum of 30 pounds per square inch (psi) with no more than a 3 psi pressure drop
over a 5 minute time period. Tests will occur over a 100 to 1,000 foot distance. Other fusion-
welded seams will be tested with a 2.5-psi vacuum box. Other testing will conform to
recommendations of the Geosynthetic Research Institute, as applicable.
Class I Ljindfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 10
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste District
2.4.3 Destructive Seam Testing
Quality control testing of geomembranes generally includes peel and shear testing of trial weld
sections prior to commencing seaming activities and at periodic intervals throughout the day.
Additionally, destructive peel and shear field tests are performed on samples from portions ofthe
installed seams. Whenever possible, samples will be taken from within the anchor trench area.
Quality assurance testing will generally require that an independent laboratory perform peel and
shear tests of samples from installed seams. The samples will be collected from the anchor trench
or in areas of suspect quality. HDPE seams will generally be tested at intervals equivalent to one
sample per every 300 to 400 feet of installed seam for extrusion welds, and every 500 feet for
fusion-welded seams.
For dual hot wedge seams in HDPE, both the inner and outer seam may be subjected to
destructive shear tests at the independent laboratory. Destructive samples of installed seam welds
will generally be cut into several pieces and distributed to:
• The installer to perform CQC testing;
• The SUVSWD to retain and appropriately catalog or archive; and
• An independent laboratory for CQA peel and shear testing.
Minimum shear strength based on four out of five samples tested for wedge and extrusion weld
seams on the 60-mil HDPE will be 120 pounds per inch in width. Minimum peel strengths for
wedge and extrusion weld seams on the 60-mil HDPE will be 78 pounds per inch of width. All
failures on the four samples must be film tear bond (FTB).
If the test results for a seam sample do not pass the acceptance/rejection criteria, then samples
will be cut from the same field seam on both sides of the rejected sample location. Samples will
be collected and tested until the area limits of the low quality seam are defined. Failed seams will
be cap-stripped over the length of the rejected seam. All re-seamed or patched areas will be non-
destructively tested, and approximately 10 percent of all repairs will be destructively tested.
Class 1 Landflll Permil Modification Revision 1 Febniary 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 11
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Dislrict
J
2.4.4 Geomembrane CQA Observation
The responsibilities of the construction quality assurance (CQA) personnel for the installation of
the geomembrane are:
• Observation and documentation of the liner storage area and the liners in storage, and
handhng ofthe liner as the panels are positioned on site;
• Observation of seam overlap, seam preparation prior to seaming, and geotextile or GCL
underlying the liner;
• Observation of destructive testing conducted on welds prior to seaming;
• Observation of destructive seam samphng, submission of the samples to an independent
testing laboratory, and review of results for conformance to specifications;
• Observation of all seams and panels for defects due to manufacturing and/or handling and
placement;
• Observation of all pipe penetrations, boots, and welds in the liner; and
• Preparation of reports indicating sampling conducted and sampling results, locations of
destructive samples, locations of patches, locations of seams constructed, and any
problems encountered during installation. The final panel plan indicating panel layout,
seams, test locations and repairs will be provided by the geomembrane installer, as a
CQC requirement.
Protective soil cover (including leachate collection media) will be placed over the geomembrane
liner as soon as practicable.
2.5 Leachate Collection Systems
The purpose of leachate collection system CQA is to document that the system construction is in
accordance with the design plans and specifications. Prior to construction, materials will be
inspected to confirm that they meet the construction plans and specifications. These include:
Class I Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 Febniary 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix O Page 12
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Dislrict
• Protective cover/leachate collection and pipe bedding materials;
• Pipe size, materials, and perforations; and
• Mechanical, electrical, and monitoring equipment (if utilized).
2.5.1 Protective Cover/Leachate Collection and Pipe Bedding Materials
Source quality control testing will be performed on stockpiled materials proposed for use in the
protective cover/leachate collection layer to define the material properties. Source testing
includes grain size and laboratory hydraulic conductivity in accordance with ASTM D422 and
ASTM D2434, respectively.
The Contractor will perform source quality control tests on each principal type or combination of
material proposed for use as pipe bedding material to assure compliance with specified
requirements.
Production testing of protective cover/leachate collection material and pipe bedding material will
be in accordance with Table 0-1.
2.5.2 Construction
The leachate collection system foundation will be inspected and surveyed upon its completion to
verify that it has proper grading and is free of debris and liquids.
During construction, the following activities, as appropriate, will be observed and documented:
• Protective cover/leachate collection placement including material quality and thickness.
Equipment operating on the final layer thickness will be limited to low ground pressures
in accordance with the project specifications.
• Pipe installation including location, configuration, grades, joints, and final flushing.
• Pipe bedding placement including protection of underlying liners, thickness, overlap with
filter fabrics, and weather conditions. Damage to the underlying geomembrane will be
repaired and documented in accordance with the project specifications.
Class I Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfiil Appendix O Page 13
Soulh Utah Valley Solid Waste Districi
)
• Geotextile placement including coverage and 12-inch minimum overlap.
In addition to field observations, field and laboratory testing may be performed to document that
the materials meet the design specifications. These activities will be documented and should
include testing of pipes for leaks, obstructions, and alignments.
The protective cover/leachate collection layer and the pipe bedding material will not be
compacted, except as a result of placement methods. No minimum density specification is
required.
Upon completion of construction, each component will be inspected to identify any damage that
may have occuned during its installation, or during construction of another component (e.g.,
pipe crushing during placement of Protective Cover/Leachate Collection layer). Any damage that
does occur will be repaired; and these conective measures documented in the CQA records.
Surveying techniques and visual observation will be used to determine total thickness of
Protective Cover/Leachate Collection layer.
2.6 Electrical Integrity Survey
After the completion of the hner and protective cover/leachate collection system installation, an
electrical integrity survey will be performed to locate potential leaks in the liner. For this test, an
electric potential will be apphed between the protective cover/leachate collection system and the
subgrade beneath the liner components. If a leak is present, cunent will flow through the liner at
the location of the leak. Holes as small as 2 mm can be detected within a few centimeters under
two feet of cover. The entire hned area, bottom and sidewall, will be tested using this technique.
This testing method is especially useful in locating leaks or damage that occurs during placement
of the protective cover. If any leaks are identified during this process, the protective
cover/leachate collection material will be carefully removed, and the leak located and repaired
Class 1 Landfill Permit Modificalion Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix O Page 14
South Utah Valley Solid Waste Districi
using standard repair and testing procedures. The results of the electrical survey, including any
repair documentation will be included in the Final Certification Report.
A qualified testing firm will be contracted to perform this survey. A detailed plan of operations
will be prepared by the testing firm and presented to the CQA officer prior to conmiencing liner
installation.
2.7 Final Cover Systems
_A 34-inch evaporative cap constructed from moderately compacted olive-brown silty sand will
be used as the final cover system for the Bayview landfill. One compaction test will be
performed for each 10,000 square feet of surface area for each lift of the final cover. Compaction
of the final cover material will be between 75% and 85% of the maximum dry density with a
moisture content dry of optimum.
CQA personnel will also sample the soil to be used for the final cover and perforrp a grain size
distribution analysis in advance of cover placement. If the grain size distribution falls within the
range identified on Figure B-1 in the July 31, 2003 letter from Kleinfelder (see Attachment 0-2
at the end of this Appendix), then the material will be considered suitable for use in the final
cover. A grain size distribution test will be performed for every 5,000 cubic yards of cover
material to be placed, and will be performed sufficiently in advance of placement so as to not
hinder construction activities. Results of all tests will be recorded on forms similar to those found
in Attachment 0-1 at the end of Appendix O. Since the material to be used for final cover will be
tested in advance for grain size, third-party CQA personnel will be present as needed to test for
compaction on each lift at the frequency discussed above and so that cover placement operations
are not intenupted.
The required thickness of the protective cover will be verified by survey methods on an
estabhshed grid system with not less than one verification point per 10,000 square feet of
surface.
Class 1 Landflll Pemiit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix O PagelS
Soulh Ulah Valley Solid Wasle District
2.8 Surveying
A SUVSWD surveying crew or an independent crew under the supervision of a registered land
surveyor will perform all major construction staking activifies. All construcfion staking will be
performed ufilizing convenfional construcfion layout pracfices. Site control will be provided by
the permanent site control points already estabhshed on site. All site control points are ded into
the state plane coordinate system as well as the site project coordinate system. During
construction, the survey crew will determine elevafion and obtain locafions and elevafions of as-
built features. No stakes will be allowed in the hner, protective cover or final cover systems
except as required to document potenfial erosion of the fmal cover system as discussed in
Secfion 6.1 of Part n.
Surveys will be used to confirm total thickness of layers during placement of cover materials.
Surveying will include enough points to adequately determine the uniformity of the layer
thickness. The average distance between survey points will be 100 feet. For mulfi-hft/mulfi-layer
construcfion, visual observation and field measurements will be used to confirm layer thickness.
j Measurements will be performed using surveying, excavated samples or other measuring
techniques. At regular intervals, record drawings of the newly constructed features and the areas
filled will be prepared. The record drawings will document the final locafion, size, and elevafion
of the constructed features within the site. The record drawings will become part of the final
construction certification report.
3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
Ongoing QC, CQC and CQA are designed to minimize deficient work and provide for conective
action prior to completion of an activity. The record-keeping and on-site observation activities
are further designed to provide documentation of compliance or non-compliance, and conective
action.
Class I Landflll Pemiit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landflll Appendix O Page 16
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
3.1 Corrective Action
For work or physical components that do not satisfy plans and specifications, the general actions
may include:
• Removal and replacement; and
• Altemate welding or patching for geosynthetic components.
Along with the final construction plans and specification, the CQC and CQA programs and
personnel will identify the deficiency and its extent. They will also ultimately define the form or
extent of conective action required.
If materials are found to deviate from specified standards, they will either be rejected or their
suitability demonstrated by additional testing and analysis. A goal of this CQAP is to prevent the
inclusion and subsequent removal of defective or inappropriate materials by providing an orderly
process of checks prior to final installafion.
3.2 Documentation
Documentation will be used to demonstrate the quality of materials and the condition and manner of
installation. The overall documentation will include:
• Detailed plans and specifications (final design);
• Contractor shop drawings and material certification reports, with an engineer's review;
• Records of on-site observation, via the CQA officer or the CQA officer's staff;
• Material laboratory test results, both by contractor and independent laboratory;
• On-site test results; and
• Final Certification Report.
The final certification report will include observations, test results, sampling locations, locations of blue
tops in the final cover, corrective measures perfonned, and other infonnation required to certify that the
CQAP has been carried out and that construction meets or exceeds the design criteria and specifications in
the permit. Example forms for recording observations and data collected during the QA/QC process for
cell consu-uction and closure are included as Attachment 0-1 at the end of this Appendix. The fmal
report wil] be submitted to the UDEQ.
Class 1 Landfill Permit Modification Revision 1 February 2004
Bayview Landfill Appendix 0 Page 17
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
APPENDIX O
ATTACHMENT 0-1:
EXAMPLE FORMS FOR CELL CONSTRUCTION
J
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF SOIL SUBGRADE
Geosynthetic
Installer Proiect: Bayview Landfill
Address Location: Utah County
Owner: South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
I, the Undersigned, the duly authorized representative of [ do
hereby accept the soil subgrade surface bounded by
as an acceptable surface on which
to install and shall be responsible for maintaining its integrity and suitability in accordance with
the project specifications from this date to the completion of the installation.
Name Signature Title Date
Certificate accepted by CQA Manager:
Name Signature Title Date
Certificate accepted by Owner:
Name Signature Title Date
Geotextile Panel Placement
>
Panel Number Roll Number Date Installed
Overlap Confirmation
Side End
Project Name: Bayvievy Landfill
GCL Panel Placement
J
Pane! Number Roll Number Date Installed
Overlap Confirmation
Side
-
End
Sheet No. of
CQA PANEL INSPECTION FORM
SHOW PROJECT NORTH
Panel No.:
S^DefectS >j,r^m^^-,^Def§cl-Descr1pti6h j^
jy^epaii®
0Dafe#: ^'FI§paTr;Typeai
'Approved:
:esr,tsyii!'?::
Panel Length
Panel Width
Panel Area
Roll Number
Technician Comments
Date
Page of
SMOOTH / TEXTURED GEOMEMBRAl^fE PANEL PLACEMENT SUMMARY
Date Time
Panel
Number
Roll
Number
Length
(feet)
Width
(feet)
Area
(SF)
Average
Thickness
(MILS) Comments
Sheet No. of
CQA SEAM INSPECTION FORM
j PROJECT NAME Bayview Landfill
PROJECT NO.
CONTRACTOR
INSTALLER
WELDING TECH.
TYPE OF WELDER
DATE WELDED
SEAM NO. 1
SEAM LENGTH
COMMENTS
WELDING UNIT NO.
TIME WELDED
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY
1. VACUUM BOX TEST
a>-siii%-i Jr?^W: • '-'^y-X'^.
ftj-engttii?j"#:
•-^,-iii.,'-'i-^--'f?t:
ii^ested^ •|T|cliriiclatisy
^f'.f^;initlais"''t?i:
t'NiiriihbScof^?-
^ Found ^Ji-
l^pate:^-
a Retested.?.
ii;'i;^Patev^;:
.S&i!lSi)6C!tM.%: I
•JSJi....-.-.. •'^t.'i
t^AVproyed.'
2. AIR PRESSURE TESTING
•UStartfc
^Sta^i^
f'&rSssuri^K
^Ttm&'-y:
mj^ ^;Zoni^ Approved* W0-...
SrSctivS
pproved
LEGEND 1
Zone 1
Air Pressure Zone
Repair
Needed
Repair
Completed 1
Repair j
Tested
Repair
Approved
Destructive
Sample
Cap Strip
Repair
3. SEAM REPAIRS (PATCHES) |
-.^.v-:..i*..-'>J-r-^".;-JU--".».- •
.-^•.->»-''.-i,-^jv;^--^)..'r,.
Sv^'RejsalrNo^^i? i;;;,^ Defect Type-JSF-: -fT Date/NDT.Type"»-:.^ Approved By;'?
1
Panel
No.
Panel
No.
Jlient
Date
Project
Project Location
Project Number
Defect Code:
SUVSWD Technician
Bayview Landflll Sheet:
Density:
BO • Burn Out
BS - Boot Skin
CO - Ctiange of Overlap
CR • Crease
D • Installation Damage
DP • Destructive Sample
EE • Earttiworli Equipment
Ext • Extension
FS - Failed Seam
IO • Insufficient Overlap
Textured
HDPE
Smooth
VLDPE
MD - Manufacturer's Damage
PT - Pressure Test Cut
SI • Soil Irregularity
SL - Slag on Textured
T • Panel Intersection
VL - Vacuum Test Leak
WD-Wind Damage
WR-Wrinkle
WS - Welder Restart
Other-
_Mil
LLDPE
Repair Type:
B - Bead
C-Cap
P - Patch
Geomembrane Repair Log
;,:•>
Repair
#
Seam/
Panel
Location
East/South Code Date
Machine
# Tirrie Type Size Tech Test Dale
APPENDIX O
ATTACHMENT 0-2:
FINAL COVER GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
AND
EXAMPLE FORMS FOR FINAL COVER CONSTRUCTION
:.J
08/01/2003 10:55 FAl 18014B6B788 KLEINFELDER 0)002
IO KLEINFELDER
An empforrr uwncxJ rnnipany
July 31. 2003
File No.: 30268.001
Mr. Terry Warner
HDR Engineering, Inc.
3995 South 700 East, Suite 100
SaltLakeCity, UT 84107
Subject: Source Materiallnvestigation
South Utah Valley Landfill (Bayview Landfill)
Utah County, Utah
Dear MT; Warner:
In conjunction with Kleinfelder's report dated July 1, 2003, we are providing the following
information to suminarizc the findings of our report.
) Identification of Suitable Material ' • -
Based on laboratory testing and modeling, as presented in Kleinfelder's Meteoric Water Infiltration
Study, one of the predominant soils at Bayview Landfill has been identified as an acceptable
material for the Cell 1 protective cap. Uiis soil is classified as a silty sand (SM) to sandy silt (ML),
and is generally olive brown in color. Based on numerous tests performed on this proposed
capping material, this material can generally be characterized by the following grain-sizes:
Sieve Size Percent Passing
No. 4 (1/4 inch) 95-100%
No. 40 70-100%
No. 60 60-95%
No. 200 30 - 70%
Other materials present at the site differ significantly from this gradation criteria and are generally
easy fo screen out based on field logging and gradation tests.
Location of Suitable Material
Tbe proposed suitable cap material was found in the stockpile north of Cell ] and in the floor ofthe
excavation for Cell 2. In the three borings drilled in the stockpile north of Cell 1, we found one 5-
foot thick layer in B-3, and a few other pockets of material that did not meet these specifications.
We investigated the materials irrtmediately below the stockpile north of Cell 1 and beneath the
dune sand south of Cell 2 and found only some pockets of material suitable for construction ofthe
protective cap layer in those locations.
HDR/30268.001/SLC3L290 Page 1 of 2 Ju]y31,2003
CopjTighl 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
08/01/2003 10:56 FAI 180145567S8 KLEINFELDER !2l003
Two test pits excavated within Cell 2 contained 6 to 7 feet ofthe suitable cap material.
Wc recommend that lenses or pockets encountered within the stockpile or under Cell 2 that do not
fall within the gradation criteria identified above be excluded fi-om use in the protective cap layer
unless further testing and analysis is performed to evaluate their suitability.
J
Kleinfelder appreciates this opportunity to assist you. Ifyou have any questions regarding this
report please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
Respectfully,
KLEINFELDER, ESC.
Renee Zollinger, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Scott Davis, P.E.
Geotechnical Division Manager
cc: Mike Oden, HDR Engineering
Richard Henry, South Utab Valley Solid Waste District
HDR730268.001/SLC3L290 Pagc2of2 July31,2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
08/01/2003 10:56 FAI 180146B6788 KLEINFELDER ©004
SIEVE ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
co«nt line
SAND
CBirje 1 . medium Hac
HYDROMETER
SILT CLAY
U.S, STAMDARD SIEVE SIZES
#10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200
1 0.1
GRAJN SIZE (mm)
0.01 0.001
Symbol
•
m
Sampie Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description USCS
OBSsification
13F|KLEI NFELDER
$ V PROJECTNO.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
B-1
Final Cover Material - Grain Size Distribution
Test Location Depth
-
Date Test# Pass or Fail
Attach copies of grain size distribution tests. ^/^>
s^
iU'
Project Name: Bayview Landfill
Final Cover Placement - Compaction Tests
1 Test Location Lift 1 Date Compaction % 1 Pass or Fail

ET Cover Approval in 2005 DSHW-2005-008845 Old numbe was TN200500900
288 North 1460 West • PO Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 • phone [phone] • fax [phone]
T.D.D. [phone] • www.deq.utah.gov
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality

Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director

DIVISION OF SOLID AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Dennis R. Downs
Director

JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor

GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
October 27, 2005

Richard J. Henry, District Manager
South Utah Valley Solid Waste District
P.O. Box 507
Springville, Utah 84663

Subject: Bayview Class I Landfill Construction Approval of Alternative Final Cover of Cell 1

Dear Mr. Henry:

The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste received the report entitled, Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure
Documents, on September 30, 2005. Based on our review of your revised Permit Application (dated
March 8, 2004) and the September 30, 2005 report that includes your CQA/CQC plan, you are approved
to construct the evaporative cover. This approval is based on construction of the cover design contained
in the current permit #9420R1. Areas of concern during construction and post-construction maintenance
are optimum soil compaction, erosion prevention measures, and other soil evaporative cover-related
issues.

When construction gets underway, please ensure that your Construction Quality Assurance personnel on
site provide daily records of field tests, such as soil compaction, and that they keep our office apprised of
the various phases and construction progress being made. During the construction of the final cover for
Cell 1, periodic inspections may be conducted. Personnel from the Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste and/or the Utah County Public Health Department may conduct these inspections to assess
compliance with all conditions of your permit and the Bayview Landfill: Cell 1 Closure Documents.

If you have questions, please contact Matt Sullivan or Ralph Bohn at 801-538-6170.

Sincerely,

Original Document signed by Scott T. Anderson for Dennis R. Downs on 10/27/05

Dennis R. Downs, Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board

DRD/MS/kk

c: Joseph K. Miner, M.D., M.S.P.H., Director, Utah County Health Department
Terry Warner, Project Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc.

File: Bayview Landfill