The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About911791.tiff kid r. whits Consulting entaS Environmental Scientist LANDFILL DESIGN, OPERATION, AND CLOSURE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL CO. FACILITY IN SOUTHWESTERN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: Environmental Recyling and Disposal Co. 2200 East 104th Avenue, Suite 214B Thornton, Colorado 80233 Prepared By: Design Assistance &Technical Review By: %wntk �auJ-� Kip R. White David A. Douglass, P.E. Environmental Scientist Senior Engineer, Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc �'"�p AEG%'°•• QQ.� ••STF It�(1/4.O 0noae '• 9F•••,�4rSoft:. nno •Y i 1 14,4 �' �0NA• �G�? Project No.: 8912-04 Date: July 30, 1990 911791 E/16:-)S11) 630 Ammons Way • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • (303) 239-901 1 EY / - p __ 4.0 LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN 39 4.1 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 39 4.2 FATE OF INCOMING SOLID WASTES 39 4.3 SITE CAPACITY AND LIFE EXPECTANCY 41 4.4 SOIL REQUIREMENTS AND AVAILABILITY 41 4.5 LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT 43 4.5.1 Site Access 43 4.5.2 Landfill Phasing and Progression 43 4.5.3 Fill Progression Within Modules 44 4.5.4 Soil Materials Management 45 4.5.5 Excavations 48 4.5.6 Soil Liner Construction 49 4.5.7 Community Ditch Improvement 50 4.5.8 Leachate Control and System Construction 51 4.5.9 Refuse Cell Construction 53 4.5.9.1 Interim Soil Cover Placement 54 4.5.9.2 Final Soil Cover Placement 54 4.5.10 Step-by-Step Operational Sequence 55 4.6 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN 57 4.6.1 Design Assumptions 57 4.6.2 Drainage Concept -Operational 58 4.6.2.1 Runoff Control for Exposed Refuse Fill Areas 58 4.6.2.1.1 Phase 1 Runoff Control 58 4.6.2.1.2 Phase 2 Runoff Control 59 4.6.3 Drainage Concept -Post Closure 60 4.6.3.1 Drop Chutes 61 4.6.3.2 Channel Lining 62 4.6.3.3 Rock Properties 63 4.6.3.4 Culverts 63 4.6.3.5 Erosion and Soil Loss 64 4.6.3.6 Sedimentation 64 4.6.3.7 Sediment Control Basins 65 4.7 CONTROL OF NUISANCE FACTORS 66 4.7.1 Litter Control 66 4.7.2 Vector Control 67 4.7.3 Odor Control 67 4.7.4 Dust Control 68 4.7.5 Fire Control 68 4.7.6 Safety Control 69 5.0 SITE MANAGEMENT 70 5.1 HOURS OF OPERATION, SHIFTS, AND LIGHTING 70 5.2 PERSONNEL, FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 70 5.3 WATER SUPPLY 71 5.4 CONTROL AND RECORD KEEPING 72 5.5 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE MONITORING 73 5.6 LANDFILL GAS MONITORING 74 5.7 CONCEPTUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION 75 5.7.1 Groundwater 75 5.7.2 Landfill Gas Control 75 6.0 RECLAMATION PLAN 78 6.1 SCHEDULE 78 6.2 GRADING AND SEEDBED PREPARATION 78 6.3 FERTILIZATION 78 6.4 SEEDING 78 6.5 EROSION CONTROL 79 6.6 POST CLOSURE SITE MAINTENANCE 80 Bibliography 81 List of Tables Table 1 E.R.D. Landfill Field Summary Data 10 Table 2 Average Monthly Precipitation and Evaporation Data in Inches for the Proposed E.R.D. Facility 12 Table 3 Laboratory Results for Clay Soils at the Proposed E.R.D. Facility 15 Table 4 Laboratory Results of Bedrock Samples Collected at the Proposed E.R.D.Facility 17 Table 5 Regional Stratigraphy and Water Supply Characteristics for Northeastern Colorado 22 Table 6 Summary of Laboratory Analyses of Groundwater Samples Collected at the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill 32 Table 7 Permitted Wells within One Mile of the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill 37 Table 8 Soil Requirements and Availability for the E.R.D. Landfill 42 Table 9 Soil Requirements by Texture Category for E.R.D. Landfill 42 Table 10 Soil Material Types and Use Classifications for Landfill Construction 45 Table 11 Riprap Dimensions for Type L Riprap at the E.R.D. Landfill 61 Table 12 Bedding Specifications for Channel Lining for Type L Riprap at E.R.D. Landfill 61 Table 13 Specifications for Type VL Riprap for the E.R.D. Facility 62 Table 14 Specifications for Riprap Bedding Material for Type VL Riprap or the E.R.D. Facility 63 Table 15 Culvert Specifications for the E.R.D. Landfill 64 Table 16 Sediment Delivery and Required Sediment Basin Capacity 65 Table 17 Gabion Basket Specifications for Sediment Trap Construction at the E.R.D. Facility 66 Table 18 Minimum CDH Groundwater Monitoring Parameters Required for Colorado Landfills 74 Table 19 Seed Mixture for Reclamation of Disturbed Areas at the Proposed E.R.D. Facility 79 c* � n.1 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Conceptual Illustration of E.R.D. Recycling Facility (1 of 2) 4 Figure 3 Conceptual Illustration of E.R.D. Recycling Facility (2 of 2) 5 Figure 4 Landfill Phasing at the Proposed E.R.D. Facility 6 Figure 5 Precipitation vs. Evaporation for the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill 12 Figure 6 Index Map Showing Location of Denver Basin 23 Figure 7 Approximate Limit of the Denver Aquifer 24 Figure 8 Approximate Limit of Arapahoe Aquifer 25 Figure 9 Conceptual Contours Showing Refuse Module Construction in Progress 46 Figure 10 Conceptual Illustration of Refuse Fill Construction 47 Figure 11 Conceptual Nested Landfill Gas Monitoring Well, E.R.D. Landfill 77 List of Plates (attached as a separate volume) Plate 1 Locations of Geologic Features and Exploratory Borings Plate 2 Geologic Cross Sections (1 of 3) Plate 3 Geologic Cross Sections (2 of 3) Plate 4 Geologic and Final Cross Sections (3 of 3) Plate 5 Excavation and Operations Plan Map Plate 6 Final Topography and Drainage Plan Plate 7 Design Details,Leachate Collection& Liner Systems Plate 8 Design Details, Surface Water&Erosion Control el f,e. ,r List of Appendices Appendix A Lithologic Logs Appendix B Soils Testing Analytical Results Appendix C In Situ Permeability Test Results Appendix D Groundwater Testing Analytical Results, Shallow Groundwater Chemistry Appendix E Water Balance Calculations Appendix F Construction Quality Assurance Quality Control Plan for the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Landfill e) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document presents a landfill design and operations plan for the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Facility (E.R.D.) located in southwestern Weld County. The property consists of the west half and the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 68 West and is currently owned by the Cosslett Estate c/o Longmont National Bank, 510 Coffman, Longmont Colorado: Richard Cosslett, deceased, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Betty Jean Cosslett Gilikinson, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Raymond Armstrong, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Beverly J. Collins, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; June Ann Pease, as to an undivided 1/4 interest; Vivian I. Killian now known as Vivian I. Nelson, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; and Roberta A. Hensley, as to an undivided 1/8 interest. Landfill construction is proposed for only the west half of the section. Mr. Ted Zigan, owner of Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. (E.R.D.), a Colorado Company, holds an option contract for purchase of all three quarter sections to facilitate construction area and adequate buffer for the intended site use. Refer to Figure 1 for a vicinity map of the site location. The site will be owned and operated by E.R.D. whose business address is 2200 East 104th Ave Suite 214B, Thornton, Colorado 80233, (telephone: 457-3333). E.R.D. proposes to construct and operate a solid waste resource recovery/recycling facility and residuals overflow sanitary landfill for disposal of residential, commercial, and institu- tional nonhazardous solid wastes. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DATA ACQUISITION 8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE PATTERNS 11 3.2 CLIMATOLOGY 11 3.3 SURFACE WATER FEATURES WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE PROPERTY 13 3.4 GEOLOGY 14 3.4.1 Regional Surficial Geology 14 3.4.2 Site Surficial Geology and Soils 14 3.4.3 Regional Bedrock Geology 15 3.4.4 Site Bedrock Geology 16 3.4.5 Geologic Hazards 18 3.4.6 Economic Geology 20 3.5 HYDROGEOLOGY 21 3.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology 21 3.5.2 Site Specific Hydrogeology 26 3.5.2.1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Shallow Bedrock 26 3.5.2.2 Shallow Groundwater Occurrence and Distribution 27 3.5.2.3 Groundwater Time of Travel 30 3.5.2.4 Shallow Groundwater Chemistry 31 3.5.2.4.1 Water Perched on Bedrock 32 3.5.2.4.2 Groundwater Perched in Shallow Bedrock 33 3.5.2.5 Laramie Fox-Hills Aquifer 36 3.5.3 Local Groundwater Use 36 ...• - A.. v 1 O C c C E e. i' n at P• o 0 y d v $ I 0 1 V E u i' v g o r v o �- m w v Z �� W e Z co a o _ J Y .,� o 0 _ W q 0 2 W Y R a ,. W o p lit m c K w J rv1 — VV `�ti I > / ' - I (< V 0 / c h \_ 1� l � o I � �a � ' av '�� I _ A �a 6 ! m l tv .� I I i %(M . -�� /�� i ( n 1 ao�, / .l 1 _— Ivs c f, .. // -' it ` 'e ti� I I� �ti\ /� V ,S I IY 1 �\ /� 'h 7 1 f �} �l IN. �/ — l ��o� "I - �\ 7 h� v \ 52� V - � � �'• _� I i i� ° tlVdb ANN OJ � I -1% il 1c=� VIt" f V1 v j•. a F t � • — , N �� { • a ,.0 vi l��—wry . o III { •I ' j '� Q �'qt s `'� i'.�� V m ' J NQQ F ' LL W '.I ti qoa .,1 l _ 1� ✓ u v f '-, <no � y 3,a ___ I voa AiNn i ) vI A — _ fN `I -ice (� M t Y Y ///� \ 1 L p�� I %. . II" l � I of O �_ I '_ a �' W I v 2 ti iLI .�Ib ... 1 "l° '��-� � a ,In, i, a . o e `-` - � m _ ra r o ". L° I i I �� o a� t 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 Page 3 The proposed facility will consist of a resource recovery/recycling center in which incom- ing solid wastes will be hand and mechanically sorted by using a combination mechanical materials transportation system and manually-operated sorting procedures. Once recyclable materials are separated from the incoming loads, they will be packaged for transportation to appropriate manufacturing facilities. The on-site recycling center will consist of a steel fabricated building which will totally enclose a tipping floor for incoming waste, a system of waste stream conveyors, a sorting area, and a processing area. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for conceptual illustration of the recycling facility. The recycling operation will require that incoming waste will be conveyed from the tipping floor by conveyor belts to a hand and mechanical sorting area to remove glass, plastics, aluminum, ferrous metals,paper, and corrugated/paperboard materials. Overflow residuals will be loaded onto end dump trucks and hauled to the proposed landfill part of the op- eration. Since it is not possible to recover and recycle all items contained in the waste stream, an ac- cessory on-site sanitary landfill will be required as part of the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. Facility. The landfill will encompass approximately 200 acres at the property. Landfilling of residual materials will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of four separate fill modules, and Phase 2 will consist of three separate fill modules. Each of the fill modules are limited to approximately 25 to 35 acres in order to minimize the area disturbed at any one time during landfill operation. Phase 1 roughly includes 104 acres in the southwest quarter of Section 28. Phase 2 includes approximately 96 acres in the northwest quarter of Section 28 (refer to Figure 4). Landfill construction and phasing is discussed in greater detail in sections presented later in this report. (T F:.S 1 tryy Y } .: ...,i7:4; . ••::..:*i...•:.....:,.,.• - ✓r i!:•'. :.::.r..... ..�::;. .a;a...c, y 1 ././••,.:i.j., • • ! �/. 2.t : • • +.i w ch t 77' � 's l i — is . am yl ..a':-ti" t•t. ii�llrr�/7� "� �R�Ei �yr�« • .ar e. '4y _ yyy '. : �� '�rz�+s..y.:�+�*�:�-"'a!,a,s'.,ry..iw..,s:,:. gyp. �.�,. .. ., a ,,3,.,:,:?.:1 t ! 1 a'E. .1.,,i....,..,,,,,,:i.'llt.1,..,13,1"i., • ,....::••.,,.:!,:„........,:.:,:::::....., ............ :: rfti.{ 47, • 1�.� f 1 �ti}r 5 tj �'a �•••.‘„,.........,.....,..:,...:., :" , ,,, . .,..• . ` � ! v `� a �,,.1 a''1 _y �+ . , .., .. , .. Iii LL �i r■ o I 9 ♦ to f w ti. j 5r •:Jy;'„�; ywy'.r'. rx • r, . �. I .lr vlis' * t Cn .':... )4 t \y y, _ . , - a t r ! xvti -;• Q V �� * , r ,,r p a r k i r �i�' 1 i t t �,( t aiC a� ; + V ,. 1 I. " .,,� ►,�,. -21 /.. .if „'4 � r Y •:1, k ,....11 i,,,.......,...,...,!ic.,......ii:........:11... � • 1 M ; • � F , E .._�k ~`. .� �'. • i , �' Y x �` x • 1 = ny + ?' r «, tj ► * 1 , �+ tr 1t ly,oaf _M,"t'��°`�•. �... I � • 3 .,, f •f'' ., ,it; `t 'may �` ..... . i. • 4. . ₹4:M : s a :,�� . M. II- M N s t. . ....�+ ,411 j • °<:.: x` ►` . . ` a �' {I '�"` tai A mi C �. l:. C .t .. �- t 1.S�„� w; '�� r, t 4 �,�,�� ! N ,•..:,....'.i.,.,:: t st ••\ s :�-., • it4 • '. tn y!'i IP "; Cr E. ;:..,:V'',..''''''''' / � •� }4. !!3 t, t.. O � , 4} f` ' } .. �„ rf .f� • r� z F- ��•" � � IQ 1.e • .. �i • O r ' 5,,,,=tom'. J y � �` 1 ��y� I— . cr 4:C V.. M t9 ." • �°° ,a fry`' J Z • t .N �.+.F ' .t t--..‘, t �r.{ � �� i. a� ;� V ti =-s V 0. • '�JJJ,JJA1kk1keee .''` ... 4. .1.,-, '. "��' ,..1.- .. • - 1. • • �.:, t ,,tea. ;. '41.1 N Va6 a J x- ' ::- rs 7 R1Y� µ w�WRAfM•� �, 4. S 3 h �(zby /• LANDFILL PHASING AT THE PROPOSED E. R. D. FACILITY fir^ ,-----\ .e.s_�_�-� '�� ____ y - o�•rrr wee\-�. -�� /1/{ i % --,---_\-----.-c„V �� _x-� -� a' mil �� _ �,,,. 1 �� ppr;�_ u,00uLe7 ��3 �, ___. \\ ` f �ii v1vvvl —, i / _� i,� 1.�:^✓ ��` �, ti NOODLE [ f ii II / Ir: ti :o�oaL! 1l\� \\ \ \ \ \ jET a / < 4* F I� ;121) ,., � ... 1i \ {-L 1 , MOODTILE0 ss._ \ ( h V�l\ .��j1 `•\ \,... \ \v_Vo '•'\ �� i IFS\_...._ V.....v-o... ...vl ^..o" =..�e.a.....• .. .I. �, `'..0 /\( �� ,,.� x u000L� i i \_ -� .W . .. —.4_��,j� ."�" i. r��_ .. ----4, ..iII— h \\ \r / / I \If A� y/ \ � MOW/LE/ �` 7= rc ^I'lilt Jti: �v� i/� /J Ew.s"NE"L"L.«ra'.. �i �� — — _� -'� 1 �'-� _ EXCAVATION AND U'ENenoxs 4i Rev MAP kip r.white I I ! i i 7,:::. ,ago g �. .. ._.-. REFERENCE : Plate 5 Figure 4 cr 7.0. -;!:!--6.1.1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 7 Residual wastes will be disposed in a manner which minimizes potential environmental ef- fects associated with landfilling activities. An area fill method will be used to place refuse at the site. Excavations will be based on generation of sufficient volumes of suitable soil for construction of a low permeability clay liner at the base of the landfill; daily, intermedi- ate, and final cover of the landfill; and construction of other earthen structures for landfill containment. Base grades will be prepared which allow drainage of leachate to double lined leachate collection sumps for effective removal of leachate. Daily cover will consist of six inches of soil over the working face. The intent of E.R.D. is to obtain a Special Review Permit and a Certificate of Designation from Weld County, based on recommendation from the Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, for operation of a solid waste re- source recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility at this site to service Weld County and the Front Range Urban Corridor. E.R.D:s approach to waste management is unique to the Rocky Mountain region and pro- vides numerous environmental advantages over conventional solid waste disposal. The re- cycling facility will allow the responsible use of available landfill space, effective screening of hazardous wastes, minimization of raw materials usage, and cost effective recycling. These advantages, combined with the construction and operational procedures outlined for the landfill, will provide for environmentally responsible disposal of solid wastes generated along the Front Range Urban Corridor in Colorado. This solid waste recycling and residuals disposal facility will service private, municipal, and commercial haulers along the Front Range Urban Corridor to include, but not limited to, Southern Weld County, Adams County, Jefferson County, Boulder County, and Larimer County. This Plan was prepared in accordance with Colorado Department of Health (CDH) solid waste regulations (1989) and in view of the site capability to comply with the U.S. EPA proposed Solid Waste Disposal Criteria, Subtitle D Regulations (EPA, 1988). .I.k3?S19 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 8 2.0 DATA ACQUISITION A total of 55 test borings were drilled across the site between February 22, 1990 and May 24, 1990. Depths of these borings ranged from 10 to 172 feet. Twenty nine of these bor- ings were completed as monitoring wells. Logs of the borings and wells and completion data are presented in Appendix A. Most borings which did not produce water were abandoned by sealing to the surface with cement/bentonite grout. All borings which were not completed as wells and which still re- main open at the site will be abandoned in accordance with Colorado Department of Natural Resources Waterwell Construction and Pump Installation Rules as amended June 27, 1988. Well abandonment procedures are presented in Appendix F, Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. The wells were constructed using 2 inch diameter, schedule 40 , flush threaded screen (.020 inch slot) and casing. The annular space along the screened interval was backfilled with 8-12 silica sand, and the annulus along the unscreened interval was sealed with ce- ment-bentonite grout. Refer to Appendix A for specific construction details. Well con- struction was conducted in compliance with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Waterwell Construction and Pump Installation Rules as amended June 27, 1988. Selected soil samples collected from the borings and one sample collected from a backhoe test pit were analyzed for physical characteristics by qualified soils testing laboratories. Refer to Appendix B for the results of this testing. In-situ permeability tests were conducted in selected wells and borings to determine the hy- draulic conductivity of the various geologic materials encountered at the site. These tests consisted of five packer type tests and 15 slug type tests as described by the U.S. Department of Interior(1985)and by Bouwer and Rice(1976)respectively. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix C. Nine of the monitoring wells completed at the site were sampled and analyzed for general water quality parameters as required by Colorado Department of Health (CDH) "Solid Waste Disposal Site or Facility Application Guidance Document." Sampling was 21 fj,r,1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 9 conducted after the wells had been developed by surging and bailing with a stainless steel or PVC bailer. All wells which produced sufficient water were bailed until a minimum of three boring volumes of water were removed prior to sampling. Wells which produced water very slowly were bailed dry and allowed to recharge prior to sampling. Clean and new nylon ropes were used to lower the bailers into the wells. All sampling equipment which was lowered into the wells including bailers and water level probes was thoroughly rinsed with distilled water immediately prior to and after sampling each well. The analytical results for the samples are presented in Appendix D. In addition, all borings completed as permanent monitoring wells and which produced water, with the exception of boring 23a, were sampled and analyzed for specific conductance. These conductance values along with water level data and selected data from Appendices A through D are presented in Table 1. A map was prepared of the site at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet. This map was based on areal photographs taken of the site and prepared by Wertz Photogrammetric and survey- ing conducted by Hardin Engineering from March to June 1990. This map served as the basis for Plates 1, 5, and 6 attached in a separate volume to this report. 2 0 o r w o o a) rii p O N N V o N O N N N p c O. r T Z 3 D O D D O a) 0 o a) a a a a _ . . _ . la OI W of OI O OI 0) J o) 0) 0) CO 0)o 0 H N 0 N CO CO Z00 (00 O N N NOW 0 CO 01 N N N N N N N Y a a s a a CO CO U W J N CO W 0 CI) CO (A J CI) W CO Co 4 O „ y M U J J g M g g = g U U 0 C0U ] y UVN0 cnco to co co co co to u r r n c0 N coN t` U N W Uj Llj 1 a 1- Q W a K J co O E N V W a M ^ V V al lil N M N N W 7- lil al V co M U U U O co V n n t T W W W S u) N V N CO 0 c) O ON O CO O O O M o N O 0 a) a a c0 o V r O V a O CO a O Q N co < O E r CO u) M CO LO N 0) O O CO O •T M u co 0 a0 O N W co r V u) N CO O u) a r a UN r r r O D r c E o o U m O T sr co 0 O T T.N.N. T ` LO N T r CO OM T T T co r T T N a) T `M >. T >. T. >.co `?-• L. M T `.c0 u) M O W D D V D D D - -0 . D D D - -0 D - • a V - D D D D D -0 -0 -0 -0 V n o N c0 N O O CO r 01 CO CO N u) M 0) co. O V EN r N f` n M Q co M co M n f` V t• O O o O a0 u) <2 r N N N N N N N N N N r O u) in N u) u1 u) u) u) u) O u) u) u) N N N 10 u) u) u) u .c -- f N r o T M N c0 r` r T. 0 N T T .- r sr a O M M D r N N V O N D M O N N 0 O O a o N O N 7 coo � N: ui v N co 0 m 0 o CO o r N 0 co 0 r` CO N < MN N r CO N r sr a V N r r O u co co M M O O a r` o o r` v co 1n u R.' O � N cci N M < N R N r ' u) u co M N O - 0) 0) r 0 Nr LC) N O N N � a CO 0) a O CO CO O O N LC) U N O a N N O CO M N 0 0 M C N CO N r V V N r r u) u LC) T O) CO t` ` N CO O CO 00 T V 71 T T CO ` O M M `.u) r (' co ,y. ,o CO •r CO O o CO L- CO O •,0 CO N .� a 0)• a co N co D V V o r CO N a N. O N c0 a00 or co O 0 M W co M < N co co N r N N V a a N r 10 u 0 T.u) r CM T V' r- c0 r CO T c0 CO T T c0 T O r N TN u) a N 1- D O) M N D r r M M CO D O 0) .- D 0) CO n N .0 V M < 1D CO CO M r 0) c0 u) CO O N N O 0 M 6 ai M < M M N r N r r a 7 7 CV, r In u b _ co O T T O cu n ^ D D N M N u a co u `.a0 O) `.0) r` c0 N T co o .>_. T r` T co c0 (C) 0N. .0 M M .0 (0r N n •D O CO V D CO• CO N a to ,� 0 0 ao 0 o f of o0 0 0 of 0 co a r r r 4 10 4 V N O) `0) r CO `CO CO R u1 O r r T r N CO n r 0) 7 M NO r n CO CO O 0 0 D co V N D O co' O 0 01 M c0 N a O O M N N r N r r a 10 7 C O )>2 .. ` `N T. N ON T or r 01 T T T O T T T. T T O T T co CD M n a0 V O V N O O M -o D D D D D •D U D - -0 D O -0 O D -O -0 U W O) a0 N CO W u) O M 0) N M N N r 7 o V R a T T O I- O) ` r `CO O TN CO CO ` T V CO T. N " TO T T. T T T CO T `N T T r� N r u) CO N u) M - r I- 0) r N O n a N D D D -0 -0 -o D - ' -0 D r D D D -o O D -o -o -o U -o -o ^y R D7 r a} t` O O) N co N t` M CD O r M 4 N CO M N r r NN r r N V O t N r` T T >. >. >. >. >. >. >. T >. >. T T T >. T T >. >. J r � .> (0 0 • D D a D -0 'O O 2) D D D -0 -o -0 -O -0 a V D -0 a' 2j V N al E O2 CO LC) T s} r a M CO N T T T T , >. CO r u1 CO N 0) O L- D r r EC); D 4 4 N 0) 6 r` -0 D D D D D in 0 V M CO N N ro _ n r V cn.--I-- >, co T r 1 0 m N_ oi V-o O• co • -o -oD J a co M N .) m _T _T No T T T ` . j n T. W > N T a D O D D D - til 03 N M N -0 - , c Nv `(O v ca J N c7 .0 D .0 N W N M ^ 1T Ci co N re i a0 V' 7 0 7 M O r c0 O O c0 O O O b o 0 O O CO N N 0) a 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 U ^ N N N d 0) O O O N O O N u1 O 0) O N ro 0 u) O O O M 0 O O O c0 O -O O O O N O O O O O N O O u L1J _ o N N N N r N O N N O O N N O r u1 N O O N N N M N N N O O N O O O O O N O O M O O N M O 0 N r 3 CD � Co N O c0 O CO CO O o c0 r O CO N V O M u) r N CO r` co 0) N CO 0) c0 c0 M CD V O r• r 0) CO N n N V) M O U _ m o u) u) r CO V n CO CO I' r r N 0 0) r 10 N CO c0 N 7 0 M M 0) 0) r 1n N c0 a o 7 CO V LC) CO O N O CO NN H W (/) M O n• N R u) co' r r-: c0 N O R 10 N r N M O) V V m u) V N c0 N O N co' O N 01 V r CO r N O r M O co' 0 M O Q a u) u u) u)CO CO O CO ) c0 c0 O 10 V u) 0) m c0 c0 CO CO CO V 10 u) N CO O r CO 7 CO O) O) CO 0 � O N N r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r N N r r NNNNNNNNCONNOINNNNNO `n a.u) u) 0 O N 0 u1 u) u) u) u1 u) 0 0 u) u) u) 0 N N LC) N u1 u) u) N u) u) N u) 111 u) u) N u) u) u) N u) u) u) 10 u) u 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 11 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE PATTERNS The existing topography of the site is shown on Plate 1. The site is divided by a knoll near the site center which reaches an elevation of approximately 5309 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site slopes at an average grade of three percent to the north-northeast of the knoll and at an average grade of approximately five percent to the south-southwest of the knoll. Elevations range from approximately 5309 msl to 5190 msl across the site. The knoll at the site is a high point relative to the surrounding area. Therefore, generally very little if any surface water drainage originating offsite enters the site A prominent drainage near the southern boundary of the site is a notable exception, but this area is out- side the proposed fill area boundary. Most drainage south of the knoll drains to this prominent drainage or to a well-developed drainage located on the west side of the site. Most surface water drainage north of the knoll drains towards Community Ditch which is located in the northeast quarter of Section 28. To the west of the knoll, drainage is to the west and south. 3.2 CLIMATOLOGY The annual precipitation for the area (Brighton data) averages 14.65 inches (Colorado Climate Center, 1990) with most of the precipitation falling in the spring and summer months. May is typically the wettest month. The nearest station where pan evaporation rates are recorded on a consistent basis is Cherry Creek Dam where the annual evaporation rate is approximately 53.57 inches(Colorado Climate Center,1990). Monthly precipitation and evaporation summary data are provided in Table 2 and Figure 5. fn 1..ti,S1 r 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 12 Table 2 Average Monthly Precipitation and Evaporation Data in Inches for the Proposed E.R.D. Facility Month Precipitation Class A Pan Evaporation January 0.43 0.70 February 0.37 0.90 March 1.02 1.53 April 2.00 3.96 May 2.88 6.45 June 1.49 8.19 July 1.60 9.37 August 1.58 8.03 September 1.20 6.49 October 0.75 4.68 November 0.74 2.31 December 0.59 0.97 Annual 14.65 56.57 Figure 5 Precipitation vs. Evaporation for the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill Notes: 1. Rainfall data from Brighton for 10.00 — _ period 1961 to 1980. 9.00 — 2. Evaporation data from Cherry 8.00 — — Creek Res. for period 1968 to 1985. 7.00 — 3. Data from Colorado Climate Center. 6.00 — precipitation inches 5.00 — _ 4.00 — ❑ evaporation 3.00 — 2.00 — 0.00 �I�I�I I I, I' F, 1, jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec month Specific wind data were not available for the site. The Colorado Climate Center was unaware of any stations nearby which would provide appropriate wind data for this location; however, the following general conditions and estimates were provided for the area: R1. S1 9 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 13 -daytime winds are predominantly from the east and southeast at 6 to 10 mph -strong winds are predominantly from the west and northwest -spring is the most windy time of the year with average speeds of 10 to 11 mph - late summer is the least windy with wind speeds of 7 to 8 mph 3.3 SURFACE WATER FEATURES WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE PROPERTY All identified surface water features located outside the property boundary and within two miles of the landfill area are shown on Figure 1. On site surface water features are depicted on Plate 1. The Community Irrigation Ditch is located in the northeast quarter of Section 28. This ditch carries water during the irrigation season. An irrigation lateral is also present in the northeast quarter of Section 28 which services the property immediately east of this quarter section. A surface seep occurs seasonally in the southwest quarter of Section 28 and is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.5.2.4 of this report. Other seasonal seeps occur along the northeast side of Community Ditch during the irrigation season. These seeps re- sult from water leaking from the irrigation ditch. None of these seeps provides free flow- ing conditions. The most significant surface water features outside the property include Coal Creek and Cottonwood Number 1 Ditch located approximately 1.3 miles west of the site, Stanley Ditch located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the site at its closest point, and Little Dry Creek located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the site. Flow in Coal Creek is to the north. It receives drainage from Section 28 as well as all of the area between the site and the creek. Flow in Dry Creek is to the northeast. It receives drainage from the north- east quarter of Section 28 as well as the area between this quarter section and the creek. There are numerous unnamed ponds and ephemeral drainages within two miles of the site as shown on Figure 1. These ponds generally serve as stock watering reservoirs or drainage check structures. One spring was identified within two miles of the site located in Section 29 (TS 1N, R 68 V) approximately 0.6 miles to the west. This identification is based on information from �� ? +rn99 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 14 the USGS Erie Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1979). Refer to Figure 1 for the location of this spring. 3.4 GEOLOGY 3.4.1 Regional Surficial Geology The region is generally covered by the Holocene and Pleistocene Eolium. The Eolium consists of light reddish brown to olive gray deposits of windblown clay, silt, and sand sized particles of the late Pinedale to Pinedale-Bull Lake interglacial age. On some of the higher elevations in the region Pleistocene Verdos Alluvium is present. The Verdos Alluvium is a reddish brown sand and coarse gravel probably derived from the Rocky Flats Alluvium. Pebbles, cobbles, and boulders found in this material are weathered and partly grussified. The Verdos Alluvium is a limited source of gravel in this region. 3.4.2 Site Surficial Geology and Soils The thickness of topsoil across the site ranges from 6 to 18 inches and consists primarily of silty and sandy clay loam. The well developed topsoil thickness however rarely exceeds eight inches at the site, and in areas within and near bedrock outcrops topsoil is minimal. The total soil thickness at the site generally averages less than 5 feet except in some shallow drainages where thicknesses of up to 14 feet were encountered. Refer to the Plate 1 for de- scriptions of the surficial geology of the site. The site is predominantly overlain by deposits of clay eolium or clay which formed in residuum from underlying claystone bedrock. Samples of these clay materials collected from Borings 4, 7a, and 8 were classified as clays and sandy clays with the properties shown in Table 3. Two of these samples were tested to determine their capacity to serve as liner material for the landfill. Both samples exhibited sufficiently low permeabilities to serve as liner material when compacted to 95 percent of standard proctor density (refer to Table 1 and to Appendix B.). The permeability criteria for landfill liner material is less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. �* ,� 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 15 Slug tests were conducted in two wells (4a and 7a) completed in saturated unconsolidated sandy clays and clays. The resulting hydraulic conductivities measured in these materials were 7 x 10-4 and 7 x 10-5 cm/see respectively. Table 3 Laboratory Results for Clay Soils at the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill Sample soil type nat. nat. dry % % % passing 1L PI permeability @ Location moist. den. (pcf) gravel sand No. 200 (%) (%) 95% std. proctor (Boring @ (%) sieve (cm/sec) Depth) 4 @ 5' sandy clay 18.6 109.0 10 29 61 39 25 4 @ 10' sandy clay 19.2 108.8 0 32 68 7a @ 0-5' sandy clay 0 31 79 39 22 1 x 10-8 8@ 1-5' clay 0 7 93 43 25 2 x 10'8 In areas where sandstone bedrock directly underlies the unconsolidated soils and on slopes below sandstone outcrops, the surficial soils are comprised of clayey and silty sands which appear to be derived from weathering and erosion of the sandstone in these areas. A small area of the Uerdos Alluvium was identified near the top of the knoll at the site; however, its thickness is generally less than two feet and provides no economically recoverable gravel. The Laramie Formation outcrops at several locations across the site primarily in erosional channels in the southern portion of the site. These outcrops are generally characterized by yellow brown claystone and sandstone bedrock. Additional information regarding this formation is presented in the following section. 3.4.3 Regional Bedrock Geology The site lies in the northwestern portion of the Denver Basin. Bedrock in the region con- sists of Upper Cretaceous Laramie Formation. The Laramie Formation is divided into up- per and lower members known as the A and B sandstones respectively. The upper Laramie Formation is composed of claystone, shale, sandy shale, and lenticular beds of sandstone and lignite. The lower Laramie Formation is a light-gray to buff sandstone, interbedded C: S1,9 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 16 with clay, shale, and coal beds. The formation has been a regionally important source of coal in the past with the mining of coal seams as thick as 15 feet in some places. Beneath the Laramie Formation is the Upper Cretaceous Fox Hills Sandstone. The upper portion of the Fox Hills Formation is a carbonaceous sandstone. The lower portion of the Fox Hills Formation consists of brown fine grained silty sandstone interbedded with a gray fissile shale grading upwards into a light brown fine to medium grained and cross bedded sandstone. Together, the Laramie and Fox Hills Formations compose a regionally important hydros- tratigraphic unit, the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. The Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale is found beneath the Fox Hills Formation. Geophysical logs of the gas well located in the northwest quarter of Section 28, T 1N, R 68W indicate that the Pierre Shale occurs at a depth of approximately 1,200 feet beneath the surface of the site. The Pierre Shale is an olive-grey shale and interbedded brown fine grained sandstone. The Pierre Shale dips generally towards the east and has a very low permeability and locally high swelling pressure (Colton, 1977). Geophysical logs from oil and gas wells in this region indicate that the Pierre Shale is in excess of 2000 feet thick in this area. There are several identified faults in the region. These faults can be categorized as general basin faults associated with the Laramide Orogeny and "growth faults" associated with the deposition, dewatering, and consolidation of sediments (Hynes, 1984). Faults identified at the site are likely to be of the latter type. These faults are Cretaceous in age and are not generally considered active (Colton, 1990). Refer to Plate 1 for location of faults identified at the site. Additional discussion is provided in Section 3.4.5 regarding the effect of these faults on mining which occurred near the proposed landfill. 3.4.4 Site Bedrock Geology Bedrock encountered during drilling at the site consisted of claystone, sandstone, thin coal seams, carbonaceous claystone and shale seams, and sandy shale and shale. The results of selected bedrock samples analyzed at the site are presented in Table 4 and Appendix B. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 17 Table 4 Laboratory Results of Bedrock Samples Collected at the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill Sample Sample Type natural nat. dry °k % % passing LL PI K @ 95% Location moist. den. (pcf) gravel sand # 200 (%) (%) std.proc. (%) sieve (cm/sec) 1 @ 44' sandstone/ 17.4 105.6 0 43 57 siltstone 2 @ 5' claystone 21.5 101.8 0 4 96 76 53 4 @ 15' claystone 16.6 0 0 100 59 40 5 @ 15' sandstone/ 9.4 0 48 52 siltstone 6 @ 5' sandy 10.9 121.5 3 25 72 30 13 claystone 6 @ 30' claystone 12.1 0 4 96 53 35 Test Pit 1 claystone 19.2 0 1 99 65 44 2 x 10"8 Claystone was the primary bedrock type encountered in the upper 40 to 50 feet of most borings. In most cases it appears to be weathered in this zone and is characterized by iron staining, giving it a yellow brown to olive grey color. The claystone exhibits very high swell potential due to its bentonite content. Analytical results for several samples collected of this material are shown in Table 4. A sample of the claystone was analyzed to determine its capability for use as liner material for the proposed landfill. The permeability of this material when compacted to 95 percent of standard proctor density was 2 x 10-8 cm/sec. This material will provide a good source of liner material at the site. In numerous borings, thin interbedded sandstone lenses of thicknesses generally less than 0.5 feet were encountered in the claystone. These areas are referred to on the lithologic logs (Appendix A) as "Claystone/Sandstone interbedded." Sample 6 @ 5' is typical of this type material(Table 4). The sandstone seams within the predominantly claystone matrix generally appear to be len- ticular and discontinuous across the site; however, some sandstone seams exceeded 20 feet in thickness. Distinct sandstone seams were generally fine grained to siltstone with a yel- low brown color. Samples of this material collected from Borings 1 and 5 are typical of the `r, '41,23 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 18 sandstone encountered at the site (Table 4). However, fine to medium grained sandstone seams were encountered in several of the borings (Borings 41, 42, 45, and 50). The coal and carbonaceous seams encountered in the borings drilled at the site were gen- erally less than one foot in thickness and do not appear to be continuous across the site. Clay shale with interbedded sandstone and sandy shale underlies the claystone bedrock and in general appears to contain lower moisture content than the overlying material. This shale and interbedded sandstone within the shale beds are characterized by a grey color. In general, iron staining was not observed in the shale beds. 3.4.5 Geologic Hazards The only identified geologic hazards in the vicinity of the landfill are associated with his- toric subsurface coal mining. These hazards include 1)the potential for surface subsidence resulting from collapse of underground coal mines prevalent in the area, 2) the collapse of mine shafts, and 3) movement of faults within the undermined areas. These hazards are not present within the proposed landfill area. The Columbine Mine is located to the west of the proposed landfill area as shown on Plate 1. An air shaft for this mine located in the northwest quarter of Section 28 was grouted and sealed in June 1990 by the Colorado Division of Mines. Research of the Colorado Geologic Survey mine records for this mine revealed a Mine Plan Map showing the extent and depth of undermining in the area (Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., 1946). The Columbine mine produced coal from approximately 1920 to 1946. In the 1940's mining was con- ducted in Section 28 west of a fault which runs roughly north-south on the western side of Section 28(Plate 1). Mining terminated abruptly at this fault. A copy of the Mine Plan Map was obtained from Colorado Geologic Survey to facilitate evaluation of the mining location relative to the proposed landfill. The horizontal location of surface features shown on the mine plan map including the air shaft and the northwest corner of Section 28 were verified by surveying conducted for preparation of this application in order to accurately correlate the location of the undermined area with the proposed fill area. The air shaft location and northwest section corner shown on the mine C*1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 19 plan map correspond exactly to the surveyed locations of these features determined during our site evaluation. The map survey information also provides accurate location of the fault which marks the extent of mining west of the proposed landfill area. No mining occurred east of the fault or beneath the proposed landfill area. It should also be noted that since the extent of the mined area occurs within a lease area and not near a lease boundary, there would be no motive for larceny regarding the location of the easterly extent of mining. Mining did not occur east of the fault apparently due to the absence of economically recov- erable coal. The mine plan map includes an exploratory boring location (E 125 as shown on Plate 1) in the northwest quarter of Section 28 approximately 230 feet east of the fault which bears the notation "No Coal" (Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., 1946). Other exploratory borings were also shown on this map east of the fault inferring that mineable coal east of the fault would have been extracted had it been present or had it been economical to do so. The locations of these exploratory borings are presented on Plate 1. There is potential for subsidence of the undermined area and the potential for the subsi- dence to propagate to the surface at some distance outside the mine boundary (due to the subsidence angle of draw). The proposed landfill will be located outside of the potential subsidence influence zone. The Columbine Mine was approximately 190 to 220 feet deep based on survey elevations on the mine plan map. Thickness of the mined out seam was approximately 10 feet. A typical angle of draw for surface subsidence related to collapse of the mine would be 20 to 30 degrees (Hynes, 1990) which would create a zone of subsi- dence 80 to 130 feet beyond the mine workings (assuming a depth of 220 feet for the mine as indicated by the mine map). In order to provide a safety factor for the protection against subsidence effects, a mine depth of 250 feet and an angle of draw of subsidence of 35 per- cent were assumed. The zone of subsidence under these conditions would be approxi- mately 175 feet east from the mine boundary. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed Subtitle D Regulations(EPA, 1988)which present solid waste disposal site criteria include restrictions on siting of landfills within 200 feet of a fault which has exhibited movement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). As discussed earlier, the faults in the area are typically growth faults asso- ciated with deposition,dewatering, and consolidation of sediments and general basin faults associated with the Laramie Orogeny (Hynes, 1984 and Colton, 1990) and have not typi- S s-i? T 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 20 cally exhibited movement within Holocene time. However, where these faults are within the undermined area,they have potentially moved during mine subsidence. Therefore, the proposed landfill will be set back from the fault which delineates the extent of mining west of the site by a minimum of 200 feet. This setback will allow compliance with the proposed EPA regulations as well as provide adequate setback from the potential mine subsidence zone. The nearest potentially active faults, as documented in the available literature, are the Valmont Fault located approximately seven miles west of the site and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Fault located approximately 3.5 miles south of the site (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). The site is not located in a seismic impact zone as defined by the proposed Subtitle D Regulations (USGS Open File Report 82-1033). No geologic hazards including folding, rockfall, landslides, or erosion potential are known to exist at the site which would impair the landfill's capability, as designed, to contain wastes and prevent groundwater or surface water pollution. 3.4.6 Economic Geology There are no economically mineable gravel deposits at the site. Verdos Alluvium, which sometimes contains economic gravel deposits, was mapped by others at the site (Colton, 1977) and confirmed during this investigation. However, data generated during this inves- tigation indicate that the Verdos Alluvium at the site is generally less than two feet in thick- ness and does not contain economically recoverable gravel. Coal mining was conducted on the west side of the site into the 1940's. The mined area is shown on Plate 1. It appears that exploitable coal reserves are not present east of the north south trending fault. As discussed earlier, it is apparent based on review of the Columbine Mine Plan Map that exploration for coal occurred east of the fault but was not encountered in sufficient quantity or quality to warrant extraction. Gas reserves are known to exist beneath the site based on the production of gas from the well located in the northwest corner of the site. Exploration, drilling, and development of oil and gas at the site will not be precluded at a future date by construction of the landfill. Care shall be taken to conduct such exploration and development in a manner which pre- 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 21 vents any compromise of the environmental control systems recommended for the site. No other economic minerals were encountered or are known to exist at the site. 3.5 HYDROGEOLOGY 3.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology The proposed site lies in the South Platte River Basin which includes the northeastern quarter of Colorado. The western portion of this basin is mountainous and the eastern por- tion consists of plains with low relief and low precipitation. Two important subbasins lie within the South Platte Basin; South Park and the Denver Basin. The proposed site lies near the northwestern edge of the Denver Basin. The Denver Basin(refer to Figure 6), located on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, extends from approximately Colorado Springs to Greeley. The Denver Basin is asymmet- rical with the western edge steeply inclined to the east while the eastern portion is only gently inclined to the east. The important aquifers in the Denver Basin are: the alluvial and terrace deposits found along the courses of the major rivers and streams, the Denver Formation, the Arapahoe Formation, and the Laramie Fox-Hills Aquifer. The Fox-Hills Formation is underlain by the low permeability Pierre Shale which may be considered an aquiclude. No aquifers oc- cur beneath the Pierre Shale in the Denver Basin. Regional stratigraphy and water supply characteristics are presented on Table 5. The proposed site is outside the regional occurrence of the Denver and Arapahoe Formations. The northwestern extent of the Denver Aquifer is approximately six miles south of the proposed site (Figure 7). The northwestern extent of the Arapahoe Aquifer is approximately three miles southeast of the proposed site (Figure 8). 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 22 Table 5 Regional Stratigraphy and Water Supply Characteristics for Northeastern Colorado Syesam Series Formation Thickness PFYsIc•1 Chum tar Uater-Supply (feet) Quaternary Holocene Dune sand 0-100 Sand. silt. and clay, Yields only small mounts of water unconsolidated co wells. Pleistocene Alluvium 0-300 Crawl, sand, silt and clay. Important source of water alone the lenticular and unconsolidated. river valleys. Supplies large s antltias of water to irrigation and public auoolY wells. Terrace 0-130 Sand and gravel. with some Yields moderate to large quantities deposits. camenced lopes. of fair to poor quality water to irrigation and domestic wells. Upland 0-100 Gravel, sand, allt and al.). Locally may yield small to moderate dsposics may be locally cemented. amounts to water to walla. Pliocene Ogallala 0-400+ Crave', sand. allt, and clay, Important source of water on the with some interbedded cemented High Plains. Y field. large quantities calcareous sandstone and limestone. of water to irrigation and municipal Dote not extend any further vest wells. than Limon, Colorado. hutment Arikar.. 0-80 Sandal Pr esent only in may yield small quantities of water extreme norrhaast Colorado. to stock and domestic wells. Tertiary Oligocene White River 0600 Silt with fine sand and clay. Generally not an important Some Crowe. (Btu's channel deposits of sand of grvla 11. locally yields rm. at [op, ant gravel a moderate a of want from Chadrnn Pm. Nicole and Jointed zones. Ohadron at bass). Fm. may locally yield small amounts of our to wells. P•l.ocme . Denver Clay, .hale and .ilraton., with Yields small to modarats Fm. amounts sandstone and conglomerate. of water to Comesele and stock Total locally contains beds of volcanic wells. chick- ash and beefeater. clay. ^ vs, i Arapahoe Sandy to clayey shale and clay Ytelda mall to moderate mums e Fm' 2 800' with a few beds of sandstone. of vaua to domestic end stock wells. Lover pare eoncalas mod, gravel and conglomerate. Laramie 0-2001 Sand. clay. shale end ssndstoos. Yields @mall to moderate amounts of Containa teal. vatar to stock and domestic walla. Quality varies locally. Up Nat Fox Nulls 0-2001 Shaley sandstone and sandstone. Important source of water in the CretaceousDenver basin. Pi ire 2.500- Shale and silt. Contain. some Not an important'source of water. 6,500 sandstone lenses. Locally may yield sma1Q co moderate Cracow- amount of water to wells (quality sous usually not very good.) Niobrara 300 Marl shale in upper part. Not an important a of water. Lover 20' consists of dense Fractured limestone locally will limestone yield small amounts of poor quality water. Banton 500 Shale Not an important 'outgo of water. Locally may yield mall quantitis of poor quality water. Lover Dakota 3001 Sandstone and Shale Yields small to acidotic. awe of Cratacesus water. Usually has high iron content. Upper Morrison 300 Smdeecne, marlafeno, lime- Not an important source of vt Jurassic Jurassic stone. mudscons, and local3Y Sandstone beds Might contain roll gypawa beds. unts of waist. Quality would be gueeuonabls to Ralston Ct. 120 Clsystona, limestone. and Not an important 'ounce of water. •ilncone. Might contain small amounts of highly mineralized water. Triassic? Lykins 400 Sandstone and shale with some Not an important aouru of water. and Farr thin ltsuuna. ton. Permian Lyons 200 Sandstone Yields small to moderate counts of water. Pennsyl- Fountain 1.100 Conglomeratic sandstone, and- Ylalde mall quantities of water 'masa atone, and shale. locally. Precambrian Igneous and metamorphic rocks Lousily yield's vary email to moderns of the mountains. amounts of water co dmstit and ock villa from luccurad and faulted zones. Quality is usually good but locally may be highly mineralized. Source of data: U.S. Ceeloglcei Survey Water-Supply Papers number 1328, 1529-T, 1658, 1669-y, 1217. 1809. 1819-1 ji �0'1 rI,C- RL INDEX MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF DENVER BASIN 106° 105° 104° 103° 4,°- --- •--�I- -- E•� -- r- /. 1 VE R SE DG WICK • l CacAe, R 1 ._ 1 PouAre I J L 0 A N IL A fl M E R • Sterling I PHILLIPS 171 Fort Collin. I W E L D R em s Iry r—.-.� so 1 SITE rJ 14/ "y v�pt1E. 10:047100!CIL n l O R G A N azA aD J B O U L D E l V.�`S41 tr i I 48° • 4 .1'Aintr 4 A$ rM x' t WAS N I N G T O N I Y U M A ILPIN P d n �y€�'du � My. "3s YS e'J 0f ej4 �. r 5� ' i+4 at,lti. ':Prn DENVER BASIN �' ei am CLEAR CREE 'IA u, - A M I~ a: 47' r, t�q„�'�'ki4S »u P'A gN nO,.E,',. • A„F°r—f .i h J Ne J' 'I / r_,71f - ,� r�tf ."* I �1 T C A R 5 0 M • `/Tw' ��k1� 'R � ilkt ��J P R K 1. 1Ei ✓ FTF e� *; 39° • C � ", n• L _---- I '� 6 ir • e f • t_ 0C it$41"1A1 t�1 p Y L N C O L N C N E Y E N N E -�- TELLER Sp e , or- 1 e y X44 FREMONT `-V--• I- -- -1--- K 0 W A r \ 1 ARK4NSAS• CRO WLEY - �I J• Pueblo �- --I P U E B L O J `C U S T E R • �yt R/VER 38° 1 ` ? Lama. �� ~'� OTERO I BENT PRO W E R 5 \t() a4 I °° fan° Q //�- 9 � II' R U E R F A°s O / 1 _ LL__.' . .—_ .—� ALAM 05 A/1� n°° T I Alamosy G°° l• i> yVoPo ioIe } o A S A N Q'W I M A S I 8 ac A , COSTILLA S Tr mi°a N 37° -- -�- -- ---� -- --�--L- -- --J ; . 0 50 100 MILES 0 50 100 KILOMETERS REFERENCE: Robson , 1983 Figure 6 cr.C P .I .7./3 �4 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF THE DENVER AQUIFER It SITE (6 miles) "Ay R.70 W. R.69 W. 105°00' R.67W R.66 W. R, 65 W. R.64W 40°00' .104°30' R.63 W. V:yette �"Q ► ' ri•lifori ---� osc x \ Lou ♦ r�o,r T.1 S. irtpr ailir I 6 ., s S S„ Ai 0 1Z..�°�7 4OSillifirr: IlitS1� " • 5066 • OrT.2 S. '�w // �f I /',m iiirrysoi Ai T.3 S .� "tea '-t7:�: .�!!��, miii ,\ 's?� �� W ��r. iglikt� + a • a-2VoralfirloalgrgigiViraiiirailiteliWiallrl rt .. `� s 4:41 ►a IPAIM p�CIrjR:unkti • tillat'a��=a ms. .�a MP ec40.•.cagAMILSP.IfirSIKOWSIffiart •I'‘'' .• etrel ,.,r. I �Z\eii ii l R . 1__dln.a:r_ �. A �►•— �1 -1►y�r.'r ��S:��jv"� ��_iil� _ 1'��]P.j�1' ,.r '1A ersn �4r ��I �f[!d��1'� 1p �1 11Eres. -�1{.' - '7 r .41 q © •ig •yy ' L`-:,hi �7.%f 1 !1 - \ �, w ., — i ,WirlA . r♦ kitl �� I f/' 1 .i ' T.6 S 1 I, l°e � ,i� , ,ot •1 y . -ash • • I 1�1� � (� 39°30' o • o ,, .) �,•��.'. _ �\ �1 Se I t • • _LL,/al p t� { .• itypoir �9r. .- i T 7S po\ Nt) :1,1 iltc, dies\�,wi ° ��7FFFF'''7F' Y T.8 S. (S I . �, i �� ww. h' f .�� . '1.1 ilita %lle iii 6„s A�ry� 1ta R.69 W.�. PS ., - r - EXPLANATION SCALE : I : 500,000 - - CONTOURS SHOWING ELEVATION REFERENCE : OF THE BASE OF THE DENVER N Robson a Romero, AQUIFER—Interval 100 feet. Na- tional Geodetic Vertical Datum of 19$1 1929 • DATA POINT FAULT—Location inferred . APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF DENVER AQUIFER Figure 7 el 1:1 1 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF ARAPAHOE AQUIFER R.70W R.69W 13 68W R 67W R.66W 65W fl . FL 64W 104°30' R.63W. R j 7'1 V \ T 5N_ a � ��\ 1p o 4444 o' o'e o i � c 4Y J Kerse are q _ tt El i. �Ta!� e r NI$lolj \� t rte Lake ......�� i `..�� , _. ' :.\.rdmI Rip rRes OG -p' RES ?I b o ' .r— fbtillxy�j/�I ai �u.OPeckh _T 4 N u - 9`J® �O�� L d g '^ ° 1 tali /'Q l m Glcrestj ~ _ .e Y - Terry(' - ° �� V Lake S s Lake MRes A 'Tema ' 1 '1' m a evl e n �"�� o �• / ;f5 � tW L D � i \ �! Long .� „� _ a ., f Y/ ke Legge u., / o e L 2N a /� a ( /i \< ha •j! 'iwo'� _.i o.. 1 �"I � • eenesbur:J ) A / - �� }T -. Redera ��^ r1 O I ns nl r, <r 1, f� • .Q u• �! ._ i 1N I �� -� Eee / •� •• i sped Vall • l_ ::49 r' A [... ~IT= , ,1� •�I •• .Io 1 •1,1 ..pec, 11 (' 40°CL" 7N•' /i3 J _6 �1 / .�` r� 6 f��/L � 6,` �•9 _ �t 4 Louth ale Ye /�Cn�f'Q • tifir�' ,.tl. �..n�� - creek; -1 .E • T 1S Marsh. .e or • _ P on 64°- ea 660, • sl , nit_ • • • r. IA p .aa!�7tt�Y/ '.F�.� ( � is ' J �i -7 / i // 1% � 1 - • ,•..�_.�a e` ��r-� �� / • i ' in • rvltY •iW1� �I �lt ■ \ IF•i, ^.nib►a . . I G ✓\ �1la. 1.3,:�5�1�" N TI ./ Te179 Ci rJ l 0tra d e I 1 el ,If"i� v.. b ,\• 1115 r r /Rrry Greek' `i. r�qa;i6`Tsp!"�� >.l • _ rl EXPLANATION Scale: I : 500, 000 REFERENCE: —5000— CONTOUR SHOWING ELEVATION OF - THE BASE OF THE ARAPAHOE N Robson , 1983 AQUIFER—Interval 100 feet.National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 • DATA POINT APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF ARAPAHOE AQUIFER Figure 8 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 26 Recharge to the Laramie Fox-Hills (ICLF) aquifer occurs by infiltration from precipitation in the areas of outcrop and subcrop around the perimeter of the aquifer, through fault traces along the foothills, in the structurally complex area northeast of Golden, and from percola- tion through overlying beds. It is possible that the majority of the recharge to the KLF may occur from percolation through overlying beds (Robson, 1987). The regional gradient of the KLF is approximately 0.0038 towards the north. The aquifer has an average hydraulic conductivity of 0.5 ft/day (1.8 x 10-4 cm/sec). The transmissivity of the aquifer is estimated to be 7.5 ft2/day and the storage coefficient is estimated to be 2 x 10-4 (Robson, 1983). 3.5.2 Site Specific Hydrogeology 3.5.2.1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Shallow Bedrock The results of slug tests and packer tests conducted in borings completed in sandstone, claystone, and clay shale bedrock are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Table 1. The hydraulic conductivity of claystone bedrock as measured by packer tests in borings 8 and 9 was less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity of claystone in boring 4 where saturated claystone bedrock was encountered was also less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec based on its recovery rate after evacuation of all water in the well. In general, however, saturated claystone bedrock was not encountered in borings drilled at the site. The hydraulic conductivity of claystone with thin interbedded lenses of sandstone was less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec in boring 35 and 2 x 10-7 cm/sec in boring 23 based on recovery tests conducted on these wells. A packer test conducted in boring 2 resulted in a measured hy- draulic conductivity of 5 x 10-6 cm/sec in interbedded claystone/sandstone bedrock. Slug tests and packer tests conducted in nine different borings in sandstone at the site re- sulted in measured hydraulic conductivities ranging from 6 x10-6 to 3 x 104 cm/sec. The average hydraulic conductivity measured was 7 x 10-5 cm/sec. �� ,r; 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 27 3.5.2.2 Shallow Groundwater Occurrence and Distribution Localized shallow perched water zones were encountered at erratic locations across the site. These zones can be classified as 1) water occurring in non-indurated sediments perched on top of claystone bedrock as is the case in borings 4a and 23a in the southwest corner of the site and 7a in the northeast corner of the site, and 2) water in the shallow bedrock perched on top of low permeability claystone or shale. Water in this category is present in localized areas at the site. Water in neither category is continuous across the site. Water which was encountered perched on top of bedrock results from concentration of runoff in low areas in non-indurated sediments. Leakage of the irrigation ditch may also contribute to the water detected in boring 7a. The areal distribution of this perched water is estimated to be less than three acres (approximately 1.5 percent) for the proposed landfill area. It is apparent that this water originates on site (with the exception of that contributed by the irrigation ditch) and as such can easily be removed by controlling drainage during landfill construction and operation and by relocation and lining of the irrigation ditch. Prevention of impact to shallow bedrock water will be effected by generally maintaining a separation distance of 15 feet between the groundwater and refuse, construction of a mini- mum three foot thick low permeability clay liner (≤ 1 x 10-7 cm/sec) at the base of the landfill, and construction of an effective leachate collection and removal system to prevent the buildup of leachate within the landfill. There are six distinct and separate areas across the site where groundwater occurs in the shallow bedrock. In general, these areas are not hydraulically connected. A common factor with all four areas however, is that the water in each area appears to originate from infiltration on site or very nearby. In Groundwater Area 1 in the northwest corner of the site,groundwater was encountered in boring 26 at a depth of approximately 49 feet. This boring did not produce water during drilling but contained measurable water as of 10 days after drilling. The boring appears to be producing water in interbedded claystone/sandstone bedrock. This material appears to have low permeability and the water quality is poor. Boring 26 is located approximately 1,500 feet west of the landfill boundary, and the area will not be impacted by the landfill. Si 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 28 None of the other borings in the northwest portion of the site, including borings located between boring 26 and the landfill boundary, produced water. In the northeast portion of the site groundwater was encountered in borings 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 (Groundwater Area 2). Of these borings only boring 13 is located within the pro- posed landfill area. From the water quality data, as discussed in Section 3.5.2.4, it is ap- parent that the source of this water is recharge to sandstone exposed in the irrigation ditch in the area of boring 10. Specific conductance varies from 516 to 4,940 umhos/cm be- tween wells 10 and 13 as the water seeping from the ditch encounters more mineralized geologic materials. Water levels in boring 10 also increased significantly in May when the irrigation season started(refer to Table 1). Groundwater appears to originate from leakage from Community Ditch and to flow toward the southeast. The water is not continuous into the landfill area beyond boring 12. Refer to Plate 1 for the potentiometric contours of the water in this area. It is also anticipated that water levels will decline significantly when the leakage from the irrigation ditch is cut off by proposed ditch lining. Protection of ground- water in this area will be provided by maintaining a minimum 15 foot separation between the present high groundwater level and the top of the landfill floor liner. The third area of ground water occurrence in the shallow bedrock is near the central portion of the landfill area where water was encountered in interbedded claystone/sandstone bedrock in borings 32, and 35 and in very shallow (5 to 10 feet) sandstone bedrock in borings 42 and 45 (Groundwater Area 3). In addition, this medium grained sandstone outcrops at the surface approximately 80 feet southwest of boring 42 and creates a seep en- compassing approximately 200 to 300 square feet on the ground surface. Groundwater seepage from this area evaporates as it is discharged and does not create free flowing con- ditions. A sandstone outcrop located to the northwest of the seep at boring 38 may be a recharge zone for the area. Water was also encountered in a sandy shale seam in boring 44 which is located between boring 32 and 35. Water level information for these three borings indicates that the water encountered in borings 32, 35, and 44 is probably not connected. Refer to Plates 1 through 4 for location of geologic sections and cross sections inluding these wells. The occurrence of water in this area is too erratic to allow reliable potentio- metric surface mapping. However, it is evident based on numerous surrounding borings located in all principle directions from this area that the groundwater encountered in these borings is not continuous off the site. Refer to Plates 1 through 4 for the locations of geo- e - 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 29 logic cross sections and presentation of the cross sections. Excavation during landfill con- struction in this area is designed to extend through the saturated zone and thus remove the water encountered in borings 32, 35, 38, 42, and 45, while a minimum separation distance of 13 feet will be maintained above the present level of groundwater encountered in boring 44. The facts that the water originates on the site and does not migrate off the site indicate that the source of the water will be effectively eliminated by the landfill excavation, con- struction of the landfill liner, and placement of the final cover over the completed landfill. A fourth area of shallow groundwater identified at the site is located in the southeast corner of the property (Groundwater Area 4). Saturated sandstone bedrock was encountered in borings 5, 19, 20, 39, 41, and 50 (refer to Table 1 for water levels ). Water was also en- countered in shale in boring 40. Of these wells only borings 40 and 50 are located within the proposed landfill area. Water encountered in borings 5, 19, 20, 39, and 50 may be hy- draulically connected as suggested by the potentiometric contours shown on Plate 1, but water in these borings does not appear to be connected to the water encountered in borings 40 and 41 (Plates 2 through 4, Geologic Cross Sections). It appears that the source of the water in the borings 5, 19, 20, 39, and 50 may be surface recharge to the sandstone bedrock outcrops in the immediate vicinity of these borings (refer to Plate 1 for location of outcrop areas). The hydraulic conductivity for this sandstone as measured in borings 5, 19, and 20, ranges from 3 x 10-5 cm/sec in boring 5 to 8 x 10-4 cm/sec in boring 19. This water is perched on low permeability claystone bedrock. Design of the landfill is based on excluding the prominent drainage which runs along the south property boundary as a fill area and maintaining a minimum of 15 feet separation between the top of the landfill liner and the groundwater surface. Construction of the landfill liner and final cover will elimi- nate recharge which may occur via sandstone within the fill area. The fifth area of ground water occurrence in the shallow bedrock is in the southwest corner of the site near borings 4 and 23 (Groundwater Area 5). This water occurs at depths of 25 to 41 feet respectively below ground surface and in very low permeability (K < 1 x 10-7 cm/sec)interbedded claystone/sandstone and claystone bedrock. Landfilling will not occur in Groundwater Area 5. The sixth area of shallow groundwater occurrence at the site is in the area of boring 1 (Groundwater Area 6). The static water level in this boring is approximately 39 feet below 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 30 ground surface within sandstone/siltstone bedrock. The hydraulic conductivity measured in this well was 5 x 10-5 cm/sec. This boring is not within the landfill area, and data from other borings drilled between boring 1 and the landfill area indicate that the water is not continuous to the landfill area. Recharge for this groundwater may occur in the prominent surface water drainage immediately south of the well and in the roadside drainage to Weld County Road 5 where bedrock is exposed. 3.5.2.3 Groundwater Time of Travel Time of travel calculations were performed for groundwater beneath the landfill in Groundwater Areas 2 and 4. There are no known domestic wells of record down gradient of Groundwater Area 2 which are completed in the same water bearing zone as the water encountered in this Area. The time of travel calculation for groundwater was therefore based on the nearest down gradient landfill property boundary and the nearest potentially down gradient residence to this area. These calculations were based on the following data and estimates: 1. average hydraulic conductivity based on borings 10, 11, 13, and 15: 2 x 10-4 cm/sec 2. hydraulic gradient based on the maximum gradient identified in this area: 0.014 3. porosity based on samples from boring 10: 0.36 4. distance to the property boundary (assumes a southeasterly flow): 700 ft 5. distance to the nearest residence: 2,700 ft The estimated time of groundwater travel from the landfill to the property boundary based on this method is approximately 87 years (groundwater velocity of 8.05 ft /yr). The time of travel to the nearest residence is approximately 336 years. There are no known domestic wells of record down gradient of the site which are com- pleted in the same water bearing zone as the water encountered in Area 4. Therefore, the time of travel calculation for groundwater in this area was based on the property boundary ti•v . �:'i.a.1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 31 and the nearest residence to this area. These calculations were based on the following data and estimates: 1. average hydraulic conductivity measured in borings 19 and 20: 5.5 x 10-4 cm/sec 2. hydraulic gradient based on the gradient from boring 50 to the south site boundary: 0.035 3. porosity based on samples from similar sandstone/siltstone bedrock at the site(borings 1 and 10): 0.365 4. distance to the property boundary: 400 ft 5. distance to the nearest residence: 1000 ft The time of travel to the property boundary is approximately 7.3 years based on a velocity of 54.6 ft/yr. The time of travel to the nearest residence is approximately 18.3 years. 3.5.2.4 Shallow Groundwater Chemistry Nine monitor wells installed across the site were sampled and analyzed for selected metals, anions and cations, and organic and inorganic indicator parameters. Refer to Table 6 for a summary of the laboratory data and to Appendix D for laboratory reports. Specific conduc- tance measurements were also performed on samples collected from all permanent monitor- ing wells completed at the site(except 23a)which yielded sufficient water for sampling. A summary of the conductance values is presented in Table 1. The following discussion is organized to present the geochemical data for water perched on top of bedrock and water which is perched within the shallow bedrock at the site. The shallow bedrock water is discussed for each of the groundwater occurrence areas discussed in Section 3.5.2.2. S .I 6) 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 32 Table 6 Summary of Laboratory Analyses of Groundwater Samples Collected at the Proposed E.R.D Landfill Concentration(mg/L,except where noted) Parameter boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring 1 4 4a 7a 10 11 15 19 20 Alkalinity 935 690 374 324 249 241 242 954 618 HCO3, asCaCO3 935 690 374 324 247 241 242 954 618 Ca , dissolved 292 496 59 351 9 37 389 266 105 CO3 as CaCO3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 - TOC 38 --- 6 13 5 26 8 30 14 CI 86 360 98 13 5 28 1]4 104 53 Mg, dissolved 144 242 38 290 8 21 400 94 33 NO3/NO2 as N 150 495 18.2 4.2 1.1 13.4 4 9.2 2.98 Kjeldahl N 1.4 2.3 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.9 Oil and Grease 1 --- 1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 pH (units) 7.7 7.7 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.4 Na, dissolved 1450 2690 568 1600 124 290 3138 948 576 SO4 3725 5124 1185 6114 121 422 8705 2430 1227 TDS 7492 10580 2162 9474 370 1058 13436 4528 2306 TOX(ug/L.) 58 --- 39 41 6 33 31 9 6 Cu, dissolved <.01 cl <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.1 <.01 <.01 Fe, dissolved .03 <.2 <.02 .04 .06 <.02 <.2 .02 <.02 Mn, dissolved .27 1.1 <.01 <.01 <.01 .25 .1 .53 .22 Zn, dissolved <.01 <.1 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.1 <.01 <.01 note:---indicates insufficient sample for analysis 3.5.2.4.1 Water Perched on Bedrock Samples of ground water occurring within non-indurated soils at the site were collected for laboratory analyses from borings 4a and 7a located near the south and north boundaries of the site respectively. Boring 23a was completed in similar materials near the south property boundary but did not contain water at the time of sampling. It has produced water since that time. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 33 Water in 4a and 23a is the result of precipitation which falls within the property boundary and collects in the drainage swales near the respective well locations. The total dissolved solids concentration in boring 4a was 2,162 mg/L with sulfate and sodium concentrations of 1,185 and 568 mg/L respectively. Nitrate/Nitrite as N was somewhat elevated in this boring at 18.2 mg/L probably due to the use of fertilizers on the property. None of the trace metals analyzed were detected in this sample. The quality of water in boring 7a is brackish, and is generally much poorer than that of boring 4a, with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 9,474 mg/L and sodium and sulfate concentrations of 1,600 and 6,114 mg/L respectively. Iron was also detected in this boring at 0.04 mg/L. This poorer water quality is probably due to several factors. The hy- draulic conductivity of the water bearing soil in boring 7a is an order of magnitude slower than that in boring 4a as measured by slug tests (refer to Table 1 for results of in-situ per- meability testing).This results in more sluggish ground water movement in the area of 7a allowing increased dissolution of minerals and increased total dissolved solids. Differences in the chemical composition of the soils may also be a factor; however, these differences were not evaluated. While the quality of water was generally poorer in 7a than in 4a, the nitrate/nitrite as N and chloride concentrations were lower in 7a than in 4a. A significant background concentration of total organic halogens was detected in both borings 4a and 7a (39 and 41 ug/L respectively). 3.5.2.4.2 Groundwater Perched in Shallow Bedrock The quality of groundwater in Groundwater Area 1 is relatively poor as indicated by a spe- cific conductance value of 10,463 umhos/cm measured in boring 26. This boring was not sampled for laboratory analyses. The water quality in Groundwater Area 2 is documented by the analytical results for sam- ples collected from borings 10, 11, 13, and 15. The water in this area is the result of recharge from the irrigation ditch in the area of boring 10. Water from boring 10 had re- markably good quality relative to all other samples collected at the site with TDS concentra- tions being 370 mg/L. This low TDS is governed by the quality of the recharge from the irrigation ditch. Of the trace metals analyzed only iron was detected in this sample (0.6 mg/L). The quality of water decreases with distance from the recharge area as illustrated by rir" I'4 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 34 the quality of water in borings 11, 13, and 15 located down gradient of boring 10. Boring 11 located closest to boring 10 had a TDS concentration of 1,058 mg/L. Water from bor- ing 13 exhibited a specific conductance value of 4,940 umhos/cm (boring 13 was not sam- pled for laboratory analyses) indicating that the total dissolved solids concentrations are greater in this boring than in boring 10 or 11 where conductivities were 516 and 1,562 umhos /cm respectively. Finally,boring 15 contains saline water with a TDS concentration of 13,436 mg/L(conductance: 11,648 umhos/cm). Other significant water quality differences in boring 10, in the region of recharge, and down gradient borings 11 and 15, were total organic halogens (TOX), iron, and man- ganese. TOX measured in borings 11 and 15 were 33 and 31 ug/L, respectively, while in boring 10 the concentration was only 6 ug/L. Of these three borings, only boring 10 con- tained iron in detectable concentrations(0.06 mg/L). This concentration is similar to that of boring 7a discussed earlier whose water is also affected by recharge from irrigation water (albeit to a lesser extent than boring 10). Manganese was detected in both borings 11 and 15 at concentrations of 0.25 and 0.1 mg/L respectively but was not detected in boring 10. The water quality of Groundwater Area 3 is indicated by conductance measurements of water collected from borings 32, 35, 42, 44, and 45. Water in borings 42 and 45 in the very shallow bedrock is representative of the water which surfaces as a groundwater seep approximately 80 feet to the south of these borings. Conductances of the water in these two borings were 3,539 and 4,303 umhos/cm respectively. Conductances of the water in borings 32, 35, and 44 were 5,146; 9,375; and 7,068 umhos/cm respectively. The water quality in Groundwater Area 4 is indicated by laboratory sample results for bor- ings 19 and 20 and conductance measurements of water from borings 5, 19, 20, 39, 41, and 50. Concentrations of most parameters analyzed were almost twice as high in boring 19 as in boring 20 with TDS concentrations being 4,528 and 2,306 mg/L respectively. Of the trace metals, iron was detected in boring 19 but not in boring 20, and manganese was detected in both borings at concentrations of 0.53 and 0.22 mg/L respectively. The TOX concentrations in these two borings were 9 and 6 ug/L respectively which is several times less than the TOX concentrations measured in most of the other borings completed in bedrock and sampled at the site. As discussed previously, the water in borings 5, 19, 20, 39, and 50 is probably hydraulically connected. Conductance values for water in these C" . 41) 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 35 borings ranged from 1,488 to 9,300 umhos/cm. The poorest water quality was detected in boring 5 at the furthest down gradient location monitored. Water in boring 41 exhibited a conductance of 8,548 umhos/cm. Groundwater Area 5 water quality is indicated by laboratory analytical results of a sample collected from boring 4 and conductance measurement in borings 4 and 23. The quality of water in both of these borings is relatively poor with conductance values being 10,648 and 8,640 umhos/cm respectively. The TDS concentration in boring 4 was 10,580 mg/L with sodium and sulfate concentrations of 5,124 and 2,690 mg/L respectively. A very high ni- trate/nitrite as N concentration (495 mg/L.) was measured in boring 4. Manganese was measured at a concentration of 1.1 mg/L in this well. Iron was not detected but the detec- tion limit was elevated to 0.2 mg/L in this sample due to the generally high concentration of TDS. Boring 4 did not yield sufficient water during sampling for analyses of organic indi- cator parameters. It should be noted that the water in boring 4 shows no direct water qual- ity relationship to the overlying water perched in the bedrock as sampled in boring 4a. Groundwater Area 6 water quality is indicated by laboratory analytical results for a sample collected from boring 1. Water quality in this boring is relatively poor with a TDS concen- tration of 7,492 mg/L, a sulfate concentration of 3,725 mg/L, and a sodium concentration of 1,450 mg/L. Of the trace metals analyzed, only iron and manganese were detected (0.03 and 0.27 mg/L respectively). This sample was high in nitrate/nitrite as N at a concentration of 150 mg/L. In addition, the highest TOX concentration measured at the site was measured in this well at 58 ug/L. The groundwater samples analyzed,with the exception of the samples from borings 10 and 13, are generally high in TDS, sulfate, and sodium. The upper Laramie Formation often produces brackish to saline water which accounts for these results. Rapid recharge from the irrigation ditch near boring 10 has resulted in lowered TDS in the area of borings 10 and 13. The Laramie Formation is also probably the source of the iron and manganese concentrations measured in the samples. Nitrate/Nitrite as N was detected in all samples at ranges of 1.1 to 495 mg/L. The source of this parameter is probably related to fertilizer application on the property. TOX was anomalously high in five of the eight samples in which it was analyzed. Its source is unknown; however, some chlorinated hydrocarbons 1.C.P31 n 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 36 such as chlorinated methanes, propanes and propenes are used as fumigants and insecti- cides in agricultural applications and are a possible source. 3.5.2.5 Laramie Fox-Hills Aquifer Although localized perched water is sporadically encountered in the alluvium and shallow bedrock of the Upper Laramie Formation which may occasionally be exploitable, the only regional aquifer occurring beneath the site is the Laramie Fox-Hills (KLF). The base of the KLF occurs at an elevation of approximately 4,700 feet beneath the site. The aggregate sandstone thickness in the KLF is approximately 150 feet (Robson, 1987). The average hydraulic conductivity of the KLF in the region of the proposed site is 0.05 ft/day (1.8 x 10-5 cm/sec) and is considerably lower than the hydraulic conductivity which occurs in the KLF in the central part of the Denver Basin (Robson, 1983). The KLF is considered to be confined in the area but may become locally unconfined due to over pumping. The local gradient beneath the proposed site(0.0025)appears to be reduced as a result of effects resulting from local faulting and is toward the northeast (Robson, 1983). Water quality in the KLF also appears to be impacted by the reduced gradient. Total dis- solved solids are estimated at 1200 mg/L,which is significantly higher than the KLF in the central part of the Denver Basin (400 mg/L). This may be due to sluggish groundwater flow and increased mineralization resulting from the lignite in the Laramie Formation and the carbonaceous sandstone in the Upper Fox Hills. Faulting which occurs both on the east and west sides of the proposed site appear to act to some extent as groundwater barri- ers. 3.5.3 Local Groundwater Use There are 39 permitted wells within one mile of the proposed landfill facility. Twenty five of these wells are private wells for domestic, livestock, or household use; five of these wells are municipal wells, two are irrigation wells, five are commercial wells, and two are specified for other uses (probably monitoring wells). Most of these wells are completed in the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer. As many as seven of these wells appear to be completed in the Upper Laramie Formation based on review of available well logs. Six of the wells are (� rfr: .f 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 37 completed in, or are producing water from, unconsolidated soil material overlying the Laramie Formation. Table 7 presents available well data for these wells. Table 7 Permitted Wells within One Mile of the Proposed E.R.D. Landfill Permit # qtr/qtr Section Depth Screened Water Yield Aquifer Depth to (ft) Interval Level (gm° KLF 23267 NWSW 21 700 490-700 300 8 KIP 480 31502 NWSW 21 KLF 24982 NESE 22 24983 NESE 22 20 10 29719 SESE 22 558 488-558 380 10 KLF 484 13369 NWNE 27 675 420-675 200 25 KLF 113861 SENE 27 790 570-790 200 15 KLF 415 114405 NWNE 29 690 430-690 200 15 KLF 550 30296 SWNE 29 GW 400 32027 NENW 29 KLF 30297 NENW 29 GW 10675 SWSE 32 875 80 25 KLF 63868 NESW 32 310 116-310 120 10 KL 72111 NWSE 32 660 500-660 200 18 KLF 490 90524 NEW 32 320 99-320 100 6 KL 70304 NWSW 32 515 215-515 215 6 151382 SWSW 32 640 480-635 190 30 KIF 480 96121 SWSW 32 740 490-740 90 15 KLF 467 115153* SE 33 10630* NENE 33 955 585-955 120 40 KLF 560 27743 NWNE 33 894 675-894 135 30 KLF 675 38854 NWNE 33 63 10-63 9 1 GW 58621 NWNE 33 889 610-889 120 15 KLF 591 138952 SWNW 33 KLF 23394 SESE 33 250 90-250 135 20 KL 34971 SESE 33 390 90-390 120 20 KL 115153* SW 33 700 15 KIP 138951 SWSW 33 KLF -. 11865 NINNY 34 990 610-990 135 40 KLF 593 132242 NWNW 34 340 240-340 100 12 KL 135049 SENW 34 855 575-855 570 8 KLF 580 135205 SENW 34 137058 SENW 34 KLF 10630* SENW 34 1002 661-1002 208 40 KLF 596 32022 SENW 34 120961 SWNW 34 380 140-380 70 5 KL 147072 SWNW 34 GW 12428 SESE 34 800 620-800 200 15 KLF 615 25077 SESE 34 40 12-30 8 5 GW Notes: Blank space indicates data unavailable KLF= Laramie Fox-Hills KL =Laramie GW =Unconsolidated * Permit number used for two different wells Review of the well logs for wells completed in the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer indicates that this aquifer is confined with the potentiometric surface often being in excess of 200 feet above the top of the aquifer. It appears that the top of the aquifer ranges in depth from e1 r,''iri 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 38 about 480 to 615 feet below ground surface within one mile of the site. Reported well yields range from 8 to 40 gallons per minute in these wells. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 39 4.0 LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN 4.1 WASTE CHARM-I ERISTICS Household and commercial solid waste will be received at the site. No bulk hazardous wastes will be accepted at the site. No sewage sludge or bulk liquid wastes will be ac- cepted for disposal. No wastes classified as containing asbestos will be accepted at the site. Fuel contaminated soils or soils containing other known industrial contaminants will not be accepted at the site. The intensive recycling plan for the facility will allow for a greater confidence in the waste characteristics at this site than at conventional landfills. 4.2 FATE OF INCOMING SOLID WASTES It is estimated that the initial operations of this facility will allow recycling of 20 to 25 percent of the incoming waste stream. Incoming wastes will be processed through the recycling faciIty. Incoming wastes will be unloaded on a concrete tipping floor and conveyed from the tipping floor by conveyor belts to a hand and mechanical sorting area to remove glass, plastics, aluminum, ferrous metals, paper, and corrugated/paperboard materials. Overflow residuals (unrecyclables) will be loaded onto end dump trucks and hauled to the proposed landfill part of the operation. Once the recyclables are packaged, bailed, or otherwise prepared for shipment, they will be stored on the site until transported to market. Storage of the recyclables prior to transport to market will be accommodated in open and closed top rolloff bins and tractor trailers, as well as inside the recycling building. Only those materials not susceptible to damage by moisture (such as glass and aluminum) will be stored in open top bins. The estimated maximum volume of stored recyclables is 5,000 cubic yards. The storage area for these materials is shown on Plate 5. Incoming wastes which will be excluded from the recycling operation include bailed refuse, refuse which has undergone significant recycling at another facility, waste which has un- dergone successful curb-side recycling, and construction debris. 7,1,1) 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 40 Most incoming waste loads will be processed through the recycling facility. As a result, the traffic to the working face by commercial and private haulers will be minimized. This mode of operation offers several distinct advantages over conventional solid waste landfill- ing operations. First, the processing at the recycling facility allows the segregation and re- moval from the waste stream of hazardous materials, including materials unlawfully brought to the site by small or large quantity generators, as well as household hazardous wastes which may be included in the waste stream. These materials are anticipated to consist primarily of solvents, paints, waste oils, cleaning agents, pesticides, and batteries. Second, this procedure minimizes the amount of non-employee traffic to the working face of the landfill, thereby reducing congestion and safety concerns at the working face. Third, this operation will remove much of the litter causing waste which is normally associated with waste disposal at solid waste landfills. Hazardous materials which are segregated during the recycling process will be managed as follows: 1. Wastes which are illegally brought to the facility will be returned to the generator if the generator is identifiable,or returned to the hauler. 2. If neither the hauler or the generator is identifiable, the waste will be transported to an approved hazardous waste facility for disposal. 3. Household hazardous wastes will be segregated and stored on site in appropriate containers according to waste compatibility and state and federal storage requirements until transported to an approved Treatment Storage or Disposal (TSD) facility when sufficient quantities are accumulated to warrant a shipment. 4. Waste oil will be stored on site in an above ground waste oil tank (maximum size of 500 gallons)to be located adjacent to the recycling building. This waste oil will be recycled by a local vendor. The tank will be designed and constructed in accordance with local fire district provisions and Colorado State regulations. All supervisors within the recycling facility will be trained in the recognition and handling procedures for hazardous waste which may inadvertently be received at the site. This training will at a minimum include OSHA 40 hour hazardous materials training, and site specific procedures training for waste management. A procedural manual will be estab- lished prior to initiation of operations for sorting, labeling, handling, and storing of incom- ing household hazardous wastes. i.c.1;Stn 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 41 4.3 SITE CAPACITY AND LIFE EXPECTANCY The total airspace in the landfill is estimated to be 24,300,000 cubic yards. Subtracting the volume to be occupied by interim and final soil cover, and the soil liner and drainage layer, leaves approximately 18,200,000 cubic yards of space available for refuse disposal. It is difficult to predict the incoming waste volume at the proposed site because of several factors such as the current trend to stricter regulations which may force the closure of com- peting sites, permitting of other competing facilities, increased source recycling efforts, and uncertainties of population growth. The incoming waste volume at the nearby Laidlaw fa- cility has been approximately 2,600,000 cubic yards per year for the past two years; how- ever,we can not currently predict the effect that regulatory changes will have on that facility or how much of the waste stream currently going to that facility will be diverted to the fa- cility proposed herein. Therefore, estimation of the site life for the proposed facility is somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, the active life of the proposed facility is estimated to be approximately 32 years based on the following assumptions: 1. estimated incoming waste volume of 1,500,000 cubic yards per year 2. 25 percent of the incoming waste stream recycled 3. compaction ratio of 2 to 1 4. 18,200,000 cubic yards of space for refuse 4.4 SOIL REQUIREMENTS AND AVAILABILITY The total soil availability at the site is estimated to be 6,370,000 cubic yards. The total of the soil requirements including liner, interim and final cover, sidewall liner, berms, topsoil, and soil fill for the irrigation ditch landfill preparation is estimated to be 5,970,000 cubic yards. Therefore, an estimated surplus of 400,000 cubic yards of soil is available at the site. A breakdown of the soil availability and requirements is presented in Table 8. C c:411:4 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 42 Table 8 Soil Requirements and Availability for E.R.D. Landfill Construction Type Estimated Required Quantity(yds3) Base Liner(3.5 feet over 200 acres) 1,130,000 Sidewall Liner, Berms, and Soil Fill 10,000 Prior to Liner Preparation Interim Cover (15% of the space avail- 3,200,000 able for refuse and interim cover) Final Cover(3.5 feet over 200 acres) 1,130,000 Cover over benches(additional 2 ft) 40,000 Fill for Closure of Old Irrigation Ditch 40,000 and Construction of New Ditch Topsoil (1 foot over 200 acres) 320,000 Total Soil Requirements (see note) 5,870,000 Total Soil Available 6,180,000 Net Surplus 310,000 Contingency Provided by Surplus 5% Note: This does not include the volume of gravel required for construction of the liner drain system and leachate sumps (430,000 yds3)which will be imported. The soil requirements categorized by soil type including the drain system and leachate sump construction requirements are presented in Table 9. Table 9 Soil Requirements by Texture Category for E.R.D. Landfill Soil Material Type Estimated Required Quantity (Unified Classification System) (yds3) Clay (liners, irrigation ditches, final cover) 2,350,000 Topsoil 320,000 Undifferentiated Soil(interim cover) 3,200,000 Gravel (leachate collection system) 430,000 r tr S'1 c) 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 43 4.5 LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT 4.5.1 Site Access The primary access to the site will be via Interstate 25 to Colorado State Highway 7, west to Weld County Road 5, and north to the facility entrance approximately 750 feet south of Weld County Road 6. The various phases of the facility will be accessed by tributary roads constructed from the main access point. Secondary access to the site will be via Interstate 25 to Weld County Road 8, west to Weld County Road 5, and south to the facility entrance, or via Colorado State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 5 and south to the landfill entrance. None of the access roads for the proposed facility will coincide with existing roads that serve as primary transportation local and collector streets for primary residential areas. All existing access roads are paved. These access roads are currently used for the existing Laidlaw Landfill. The proposed road from Weld County Road 5 to the recycling facility will be a minimum of 40 feet wide and will be surfaced with asphalt pavement. The road will be crowned to fa- cilitate surface water drainage away from the road. Roads from the recycling facility to the landfill working areas will be a minimum of 40 feet wide and will be surfaced with gravel to facilitate all-weather access to the working areas. These roads shall also be crowned to facilitate drainage to the road side. 4.5.2 Landfill Phasing and Progression The landfill will be constructed in two phases(Phase 1 and Phase 2). Phase 1 consists of the excavation area which will slope to the south, and Phase 2 consists of the excavation area which will slope to the north. The phases are further divided into seven fill modules (Module A through Module G) which encompass approximately 25 to 35 acres each (refer to Plate 5, Excavation and Operations Plan Map). 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 44 The landfill will be constructed beginning at the southwest corner of the site in Module A and proceed to final grade in each module in succession. Sufficient excavation will be completed in Module A to provide working space for liner and leachate collection system construction and for landfilling prior to receipt of wastes at the site. These initially exca- vated soils will be stockpiled to the west and south of Module A for future use as cover or liner material. These stockpiles will also provide some visual screening of the site opera- tions for traffic on Weld County Road 5. Soils for interim cover will be provided by exca- vating ahead of the working face and directly applying soil as needed. This method of op- eration will minimize the disturbed area and handling of soils thus minimizing costs as well as dust generation. Excess excavated soil (soil which cannot be directly applied as cover or liner) will be stockpiled around the site perimeter as shown on Plate 5. Refer to Section 4.5.4 for discussion of the soil excavation and segregation for appropriate landfill con- struction uses. Refuse filling in Module A will begin following construction of the Phase 1 leachate collec- tion sump and floor liner with liner cover(drain layer). Refer to Sections 4.5.6 and 4.5.8 for discussion of the liner and leachate sump construction respectively. As landfill construction nears completion in Module A, soil excavation and liner construc- tion will be initiated in the southwest corner of Module B. Some of the excavated soil ma- terials from Module B will be directly used in completion of landfill construction in Module A. This pattern will be continued for construction of the remaining modules. Modules C through G will be constructed from the south boundaries of each module. 4.5.3 Fill Progression Within Modules The area prepared for disposal will be kept as small as practical while still allowing ade- quate operational room. This practice will minimize 1) the drainage control requirements during operation, 2) the exposure of the floor liner and leachate drain layer prior to cover with refuse, and 3) the quantity of intermediate soil cover required over completed refuse cells. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 45 Once a disposal area has been prepared within the fill module, refuse placement will begin by placing incoming waste in cells approximately 8 to 12 feet in thickness. The initial cell in each prepared area will be constructed by unloading refuse from the top of the working face and compacting it down the face in order to prevent contact of the landfill equipment and disposal vehicles with the liner and liner drainage layer. As each successive cell is constructed on top of the previous cell, it will be filled in such a manner as to leave an ac- cess ramp to successively higher lifts as conceptualized in Figures 9 and 10. This access ramp will be filled with refuse during cell construction in the the next area prepared within the module. 4.5.4 Soil Materials Management Excavated soil materials will be segregated according to material type according to the Unified Soil Classification System and use classifications. The soil and bedrock types and appropriate use classifications are presented in Table 10 below. Table 10 Soil Material Types and Use Classifications For Landfill Construction Material Type Use Classification (Unified Soil Classification) topsoil topsoil over final cover clay(CL) final cover, liner and interim cover silt(ML) interim cover sand (SM, SC) interim cover claystone(CL) final cover, liner and interim cover sandstone/siltstone(SM,ML) interim cover CI.,F 1 1) CONCEPTUAL CONTOURS SHOWING N LEGEND: REFUSE MODULE CONSTRUCTION IN '! `PROGRESS -'yNatural Contours \ — Refuse Fill Contours / ^' Sea le:In-:100E --- � --Excavation Contours / ---, S2cpo,, / .w Excavation Area \ / \ N) / / Completed Liner with cover, minimum 501 ahead of working face 1 I r s�20� I / `\ I // /S \� / �efuse Working Face \ / Access 1 / / I \ I / I I s��o / / Working Fiece / / E / I -5250 / i • 5240 ' /' 5230 f j i 5220 / i / _ _ i 6Fi II Area Boundary s e00 �N ��o rig � `dr e'�9 M'<:xi:a$"": T Y.`-.j::....: N sx,:s Y�;�c^. .$�:%.� d V III Mad oo :: m �QI):Q:..5..MT\D! RM L .ii..:. Y SPENG/ �K 1/ 1 rinargi IL niten MOS a) Nang us 44.P.5O!;::; CC :::::W. � *�_ *ZRir° , �1�1111 LL �� " ..:..::: as I� (y.',^a. 8 13N (`\\III III"t7:!!!". l a�: 73 I 'z U:o��'�:ii:�c � ::. ._ M ; ::W z`iN CL I /,�ll'i <�' o 1.4,1111111 Ij�1��11.-:zi;gt w m 1`,' oegccys�,` N L m Y \.D N a.;ssz::::::mot::::),. a) aa o LL 11111,``."^ > �:>.`y:` CO IL x o `4:�:c: E3: N a ` `_= �''" > :;:, 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 48 The top 18 inches of soil from all areas to be excavated (exclusive of areas where depth to bedrock is less than 18 inches) will be considered topsoil. Although the well developed topsoil depth is generally less than 18 inches at the site, this top 18 inches is generally suit- able for cultivation with appropriate amendments. Removal of the 18 inches in these areas will also make up any shortfall for areas where very little or no topsoil is present. When it is necessary to stockpile the topsoil, the stockpiles will be seeded with a cover crop of the perennial grass mix as specified in Section 6.4 depending on the anticipated duration of storage. There are abundant clay soils and claystone bedrock materials at the site which are suitable for landfill liner material and final cover. When sands or silts (SM, SC, or ML) are avail- able,the clay materials (CL)will not be used for daily cover but will be segregated for use as final cover or liner construction. 4.5.5 Excavations The elevation contours of the base of the landfill are presented on Plate 5. These contours represent the fill area base grades immediately prior to liner construction. These contours are based primarily on excavations in the landfill area; however, there are some areas of Module B where soil fill is necessary prior to construction of the clay liner (refer to Plate 5). In such areas the soil fill shall consist of clay compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of standard proctor density at a moisture content ranging from -2 to +2 percent of optimum moisture as defined by standard proctor testing (ASTM D 698). Refer to Appendix F, Construction Quality Assurance/Ouality Control Plan (COAOC Plan), for description of the soil placement compaction and testing methods to be used for soil fills. Excavation in each area within a module will be conducted by first removing and stockpil- ing the topsoil in that area. Excavation of topsoil shall also occur in areas where soil fill is required prior to placement of the soil fill. Excavation grades will be based on surveyed grade stakes as described in Appendix F, CQAQC Plan. In general, the excavation floor will consist of bedrock. As a rule the excavation grades will not exceed 25 percent (slopes no steeper than 4 hori- zontal to 1 vertical). One exception to this basic rule includes the northeast side wall of the 71..1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 49 Phase 2 leachate sump. The excavation sidewalls in this area as shown on Plate 5 will be approximately 1 to 1. The side slopes of the excavations will be constructed to comply with minimum Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA)standards. OSHA requires that the approximate maximum angle of repose of sidewalls of excavations be no more than 90 de- grees for solid rock, shale, and other cemented sands and gravels, and 45 degrees (1 to 1) in less cemented unconsolidated materials. Other fundamental protection and specific excavation requirements listed in 29 CFR Chapter XVII will be followed. 4.5.6 Soil Liner Construction The soil liner shall consist of a minimum of three feet of clay with a compacted in-place permeability of less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. Where sandstone bedrock forms the base of the excavation,or if fault scars are encountered in the excavation, the area shall be over-excavated by a depth of one foot, and the liner shall be four feet in thickness. The liner will be constructed by placing clay in thin lifts(compacted thickness of eight inches or less) and compacting with a sheepsfoot roller. The final surface of the liner shall be flattened and smoothed, using a flat wheel drum compactor, in order to facilitate drainage of leachate across the landfill floor. Roller patterns and lift thicknesses required to achieve the specified permeability of less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec will be established based on construction of a test liner section as described in Appendix F, COAOC Plan. Refer to Plate 7 for design details for the liner and liner cover systems. The liner for each successive fill area within a module and between modules shall be keyed together to provide a continuous liner across the landfill floor and sidewalls. A minimum of 50 feet of liner shall be constructed ahead of the lower landfill cell in each working area as illustrated in Figure 9. The one foot gravel drainage layer on top of the liner shall extend a minimum of 10 feet ahead of the lower landfill cell. The remainder of the constructed liner shall be covered with a minimum of one foot of loose soil to prevent dessication. This liner construction will require that the base grade of the landfill excavation be completed to a minimum of 75 feet ahead of refuse filling operations at all times. Keying of subsequent liner sections together will be accomplished by removing the soil liner cover and one foot of liner thickness off of the previous liner and replacing it with new soil liner during ongo- ti 1.r1',:c1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 50 ing liner construction. After the one foot of clay has been removed from the existing liner section, the exposed liner will be inspected for signs of dessication and repaired as neces- sary as described in the COAOC Plan. 4.5.7 Community Ditch Improvement Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) currently operates the Community Ditch which crosses the northeast quarter of Section 28 (T 1N, R 68W). As part of the landfill construction, prior to operations being initiated in Phase 2 of the landfill area, that portion of the ditch identified on Pate 5 will be straightened and lined. The irrigation ditch is currently leaking water and causing a perched water condition in the area of borings 7a and 10 as well as surface seeps east of the ditch. The proposed lining would have obvious water conservation benefits for FRICO and owners of ditch rights. In addition, the proposed channel lining would prevent leakage of water which could cause saturated ground conditions near the landfill thereby compromising the landfill cover and increasing the management effort required for the leachate collection system. The channel lining is proposed to consist of concrete lining with a sublining of imperme- able synthetic material such as high density polyethylene. A conceptual cross section of the channel after lining is presented on Plate 8. The improved channel will be protected from landfill operations by a 12 foot litter and access control fence and a 100 foot easement. Cleaning of debris which may escape the landfill boundary will be conducted on the entire channel length located in Section 28 at the beginning of the irrigation season, after major wind events, and on an as-needed basis predicated on a minimum of weekly inspections or as requested by FRICO. Construction specifications and discharge characteristics for the improved canal will be in accordance with the Design Review Process and Design Criteria for Facilities of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (1984) and with the SCS Technical Guide- Irrigation Water Conveyance 428-A-1. These criteria insure that the canal design flow will accommodate the 100-year storm event plus the maximum normal irrigation flow. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 51 Mr. Montoya, the representative of FRICO, has been contacted with this proposal and has indicated that FRICO has no categorical objections to the proposal if the previously men- tioned design criteria are met(Montoya, 1990). 4.5.8 L.eachate Control and System Construction There are four facets of leachate control for the E.R.D landfill including: 1. minimization of run-on of precipitation, 2. placement and compaction of low permeability final soil cover, 3. construction of the floor and sidewall liners, and 4. construction of a leachate collection system. This section addresses the construction and operation of the leachate collection system. The leachate collection system has been designed to allow drainage of leachate across the sloped landfill floor to collection sumps at the low points of the landfill. Two leachate col- lection sumps will be constructed at the site at the south and north ends of Phases 1 and 2 respectively. The landfill floor will slope to the leachate sumps at gradients ranging from 2 to 5 percent. A one foot thick drainage layer constructed of highly permeable sand and gravel(permeability≥ 1 x 10-2 cm/sec)will be placed on top of the liner to facilitate move- ment across the landfill floor to the sump locations. The sump will be constructed with a four foot clay liner, supplemented with an overlying 60 mil high density polyethylene (I DPE) liner. The sump will be equipped with a monitoring and extraction well for sam- pling of leachate levels and quality and removal of the leachate. Refer to Plate 7 for details of the sump. The leachate collection sump has been designed to facilitate detection and removal of leachate should it develop at the base of the landfill. Monitoring of fluid level in the leachate collection sump will be conducted at least weekly and in conjunction with the ground-water sampling. Whenever 1.5 feet or more of leachate have accumulated in the sump riser, a sample shall be collected and analyzed for the same parameters used for the ground-water evaluation (refer to Section 5.5, Groundwater and Laachate Monitoring). Whenever five feet or more of fluid are detected in the extraction pipe, the leachate shall be 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 52 removed and treated as necessary based on regulatory constraints. Options for treatment of non hazardous liquids include evaporation on site, use within the contained operations area for wetting of haul roads and excavation surfaces for dust control, and treatment at a local waste water treatment facility or other appropriate facility depending on the chemical makeup of the leachate. Additional chemical analysis will be required to facilitate treatment of the leachate. The parameters for further analyses will be prescribed based on the re- quirements of the proposed treatment method or facility. The sumps will be constructed according to the following sequence: Sten 1. Excavate the sump to the dimensions and design depth illustrated on Plate 7. Maintaining slopes no steeper than 4 to 1 on the sides of the excavation (excluding the landfill sidewall for the Phase 2 Sump). Sten 2. Place and compact the liner of the sump to the design thickness of four feet. Refer to the COAOC Plan for soil placement, testing, and sampling proce- dures to be used during construction of the liner. The liner shall be properly keyed to the surrounding floor liner as previously described and to the landfill sidewall liner. Step 3. Construct the synthetic liner key trench as shown on Plate 7. Sten 44. Smooth the top surface of the clay liner throughout the sump area by rolling with a flat wheel drum roller and by use of appropriate hand tools to provide a projection free surface for placement of the synthetic liner. The surface of the clay liner shall be inspected as specified in the COAOC Plan prior to placement of the synthetic liner. Sten 5. Install a 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner over the prepared surface according to the agreed upon panel layout, seaming techniques and installation procedures(refer to COAOC Plan). StTp 6. Place 16 ounce nonwoven geotextile fabric(needle punched polypropylene) over the liner as shown on Plate 7. Sten 7. Place 1 foot of C-33 sand over the geotextile in the bottom and 4 to 1 side slopes of the sump (refer to Plate 7 for specifications of the sand). StTD H. The first section of perforated extraction pipe(six inch diameter schedule 40 PVC, 30 slot) shall be placed in the bottom of the sump as shown on Plate 4. The bottom of the pipe shall be capped with a solvent welded slip cap. c^ e ,r* ` 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 53 Steo 9. While holding the pipe upright in the sump, backfill the sump with minus 3/8 inch sand/gravel with an in-place permeability of greater than or equal to 1 x 10-2 cm/sec so that the gravel surrounds the extraction pipe along the perforated interval and extends to within three feet of the top of the sump excavation. Gravel shall not be dumped in bulk on the sidewall liner section of the Phase 2 Sump, but shall be placed in a manner that prevents damage to the geotextile and HDPE liner. p_112. Place 1 foot of C-33 sand on top of the minus 3/8 inch sand/gravel. Step 11. Install 10 inch outer casing over the extraction pipe as shown on Plate 7, as protection against damage during landfill construction and to prevent pene- tration of the liner with the extraction pipe as the landfill settles around the pipe. Step 12. Paint the outer casing and attach appropriate flagging to enhance its visibility and to prevent it being damaged by operating equipment or traffic in the area. In addition, mound refuse or soil around the outer casing of the ex- traction pipe to serve as protection against damage by landfill traffic. Step 13. Extend the extraction pipe and outer casing as landfilling proceeds around the sump. Step 14. Upon completion of the landfill, allow three feet of stickup of the casing above final grade, and install a locking steel well protector over the casing. Cement the well protector in place a minimum of three feet below final grade. 4.5.9 Refuse Cell Construction Refuse cells, 8 to 12 feet in thickness, will be constructed by compacting incoming refuse in thin layers (i.e., 1 to 2 feet in thickness). The bottom cell of each phase will be con- structed by unloading refuse at the top of the cell and compacting it down the working face. This method of operation will minimize disturbance of the floor liner and drainage layer over the liner. The working face shall be maintained at a slope no steeper than 4 to 1 (horizontal to verti- cal). The maximum cross length of the working face shall be 150 feet except during windy periods and night-time operations when it shall be no longer than 100 feet. Windy periods will be defined as periods of sustained winds for one hour or more of 30 miles per hour or greater(but less than 40) as measured using an on-site anemometer, or at the operators dis- cretion which ever is more stringent. The working face will be closed to disposal of tin- e 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 54 bailed wastes at sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or 55 mph gusts (refer to Section 4.7.1). The perimeter slopes of the refuse cells will be maintained at 1 to 1 or flatter. A minimum width of 50 feet of liner surface(with liner cover) shall be maintained between the fill area boundaries to allow continuity of liner beneath and around the entire landfill area. The liner between fill areas shall be keyed together as described in Section 4.5.6, Liner Construction and the COAOC Plan. 4.5.9.1 Interim Soil Cover Placement A minimum of six inches of soil cover will be applied to the working face on a daily basis. Refuse shall not be exposed except at the working face during fill operations. Intermediate cover (consisting of one foot of soil) will be placed over fill areas which are temporarily left unused for one month or more and over ingress and egress routes which overlie refuse. 4.5.9.2 Final Soil Cover Placement Final cover over the landfill will consist of a minimum of 4.5 feet of soil placed in the fol- lowing manner: Low permeability layer: Three feet of clay compacted at -2 to +2 percent of optimum moisture(ASTM D-698)by making a minimum of five passes with a sheepsfoot compactor on each lift. Loose lift thickness shall not exceed 0.8 feet. This layer will be 4.5 feet thick over the benches. Topsoil bedding layer: Six inches of clay bedding material shall be placed on top of the compacted soil and compacted with no more than two passes with a sheepsfoot roller. Top layer: A minimum of one foot of topsoil shall be placed on top of the low permeability layer. This top layer will be firm but not compacted to allow seeding with the appropriate post closure vegetation species. The top six inches of this layer, taken from the topsoil .• :., 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 55 stockpiles, will be amended as necessary to support the proposed vegetation species. Refer to Section 6.0 for details for preparation and erosion control measures for the seedbed. 4.5.10 Step-by-Step Operational Sequence The general progression of major construction activities at the landfill are provided below. This progression is meant to serve as a general planning guide and does not provide con- struction detail. In addition, it does not provide sequence of reclamation activities which will be conducted as final grades are completed in each module and smaller work areas within each module. Steo 1. Abandon existing borings and wells within the landfill area as described in Appendix F, COAOC Plan. Steo 2. Construct proposed Monitoring Well 53 northeast of the proposed Phase 2 Leachate Sump location. Step 3. Construct landfill access road to proposed recycling location. Ste“. Construct recycling facility parking and storage areas. Sten 5. Construct water reservoir for fire protection north of recycling facility. Sten 6. Construct access road to Phase 1, Module A. Sten 7. Construct Permanent Drainages 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 and associated drainage control structures including culvert and sediment trap structures. StTo 8. Construct Primary Run-on Diversion for Module A. Step 9. Construct temporary run-on diversion ditches for a refuse fill working area in Module A. Step 10. Excavate a working area in Module A to design depth and grade. Steil 1. Stockpile excess soil at the site perimeter to provide visual impact berms. Step 12. Construct Phase 1 Leachate Collection Sump. Step 13. Construct floor liner in working area and place drainage layer over com- pleted liner section. Stems 4. Construct Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells LG 1 through LG 7 along the west site perimeter and LG 23 through LG 32 along the east and south perimeter. . G:11 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 56 Step 15. Upon completion of refuse filling in the prepared area, repeat steps 8 through 11 as necessary to finish construction of Module A. Step 16. Construct Primary Run-on Diversion for Module B. Ste�17. Construct Liner Berm 1 located at the south boundary of Module B. Step 18. Construct Permanent Drainages 1.1 and 1.3 and the sediment trap at the end of Drainage 1.1. Step 19. Continue construction of Modules B, C, and D in similar fashion to Module A. Steo 20. Prior to excavation in Module D,construct Permanent Drainage 1.7. Stems 1. Prior to excavation in Module E, construct Permanent Drainage 1.7a and 1.8. Ste�22. Prior to refuse filling in Phase 2, construct the realignment of Community Ditch along with Culvert 1 and the proposed sediment trap east of the new Community Ditch. Ste�23. Excavate and/or fill as necessary the old Community Ditch to insure proper drainage to the Phase 2 Runoff Retention Pond. Step 24. Construct the runoff retention pond in the northeast corner of Module G. Step 25. Construct diversion structures including the Primary Run-On Diversion for Module E to prevent water which has not contacted refuse from entering the Phase 2 Runoff Retention Pond. Step 26. Construct Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells LG 8 through LG 22 around the west, north, and east site perimeter. Step 27. Excavate, line, and construct liner cover for a work area in Module E. Step 2g. As new work areas are prepared, modify temporary diversion structures as necessary. Step 29. Continue excavation, site preparation, and refuse filling operations in Modules E and F in a similar fashion to that described for Modules A through D. Step 30. Prior to excavation in Module F, construct Permanent Drainages 1.11 and 1.12. Sten 31. Prior to filling above original grade in Module G, construct Permanent Drainages 1.9 and 1.10. Step 32. As operation during refuse filling in Module G approaches the Phase 2 Runoff Retention Pond, remove and treat, as necessary, any remaining wa- ter in the pond and construct the Phase 2 Leachate Sump. r,tczi n, 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 57 Step 33. Construct Liner Berm 2 in conjunction with the leachate sump construction. 4.6 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN The surface water drainage plan has been designed to conduct surface water from the site in a manner which creates as little disturbance as possible to existing drainage patterns. Due to the increased slope and the engineered soil cover surface, runoff from the fill area after closure will be increased from the present runoff. Erosion and infiltration, however, will be substantially reduced after reclamation compared to present erosion and infiltration rates. Offsite surface drainage patterns will not be substantially altered by the proposed construc- tion. 4.6.1 Design Assumptions There are two categories of drainages for the operation and closure of the proposed facility. Operational drainages will conduct water only during the active filling of the landfill. Permanent surface water drainages will conduct water both during the operation of the site and post closure. Permanent drainages are provided around the perimeter of the landfill and permanent drop chutes are provided off the reclaimed landfill surface. The final landfill topographic surface was divided into 16 drainage sub-basins with drop chutes (numbered 1 through 16 as shown on Plate 6) provided for each sub-basin. The individual fill modules are assumed to have a life of approximately four years and thus the operational drainage design has been based on the 25 year, 24-hour storm which is esti- mated to be four inches (NOAA Atlas 2, Vol 3, 1973). The curve number for the opera- tional drainages has been estimated at 83 and has been modified upward to 93 with the as- sumption of Type III antecedent moisture conditions. The design storm for the permanent surface drainages is the 100 year, 24-hour storm event. The design storm is estimated to be 5 inches(NOAA Atlas 2, Vol 3, 1973). A SCS curve number of 75 has been assigned to the final surface assuming contoured pasture in fair condition with 50 to 75 percent plant cover(0.5 to 5 tons plant material per acre) and a hy- drologic soil type C (SCS, 1984). The curve number has been modified upwards by as- suming Type III antecedent moisture conditions to 88.5. The utilization of the 100 year, 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 58 24-hour storm under type III (saturation) antecedent moisture conditions provides a very conservative design storm. Peak runoff for the design storm has been estimated for each of the 16 sub-basins and is presented on Plate 6. Peak runoff has been estimated utilizing SCS TR-55 methodology (1984). 4.6.2 Drainage Concept-Operational Operational drainages will be constructed for the purpose of preventing run-on to the land- fill working area during refuse fill operations and to convey the resulting water off site. Water which enters these drainages shall not contact refuse prior to being discharged off site. Sediment traps are proposed for minimizing offsite sedimentation associated with these operational drainages. Operational drainages are also proposed for Phase 2 to convey water which may have con- tacted refuse in the exposed landfill working area to a runoff retention pond at the northeast corner of the fill area(refer to Plate 3). Operating fill modules are approximately 25 to 30 acres in size and have anticipated lives of 4 to 5 years. The design storm for the operational drainage has been taken as the 25 year, 24-hour storm. The probability that the design storm will be exceeded within the module life is approximately 15 percent. Considering the minimal damage which would result from an exceedance event in this case the risk is considered acceptable. These temporary drainages will be easily maintainable and no riprap protection is warranted. 4.6.2.1 Runoff Control for Exposed Refuse Fill Areas Runoff generated from water which falls directly onto exposed refuse fill surfaces will be contained on site during operations of both Phases 1 and 2. The volume of such runoff will be minimized in each phase by preventing run-on to the exposed refuse working areas. 4.6.2.1.1 Phase 1 Runoff Control Landfill construction in Phase 1 will be conducted from the low point in the excavation sur- face to the high point. Therefore, the leachate collection sump will be constructed prior to ` ,11) 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 59 any refuse filling in Phase 1. Runoff in the Phase 1 area will be contained in this sump. Care shall be taken to prevent run-on to the prepared fill areas to minimize the quantity of water which potentially contacts refuse and runs into the leachate collection system and ul- timately to the sump. Refer to Section 4.5.8 for discussion of the design construction and operation of the sump. 4.6.2.1.2 Phase 2 Runoff Control Landfill construction in Phase 2 will proceed from the high point of the excavation surface to the low point. Therefore,drainage will be away from the working face. A runoff reten- tion pond will be constructed near the northeast corner of Phase 2 to allow collection of runoff which potentially contacts refuse in the working area. This pond was sized to ac- commodate the runoff from the worst month (.58 inches) based on a water balance (Appendix E), as well as the 100 year, 24-hour storm, for a drainage area of 15 acres. The volume of the pond will be approximately 6.2 acre feet. Refer to Plate 8 for design details for the pond. Diversion drainages will be constructed, as shown on Plate 5 and at other appropriate locations determined as landfilling proceeds, to divert water not associated with the refuse fill area away from the pond. Runoff from the refuse filling area will be chan- neled to the pond in temporary drainages constructed to service the working face. Water will not be discharged from this pond unless an NPDES permit is applied for and granted, and the water quality meets the standards established by the U.S. EPA and State of Colorado for discharge from the site. Water which may collect in this pond may be used for wetting of excavation areas and haul roads within the contained operational area to aid in dust suppression. Design details for the runoff retention pond are presented on Plate 8. The pond shall have a minimum two foot thick clay liner compacted to 95 percent of standard proctor density and with a permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. A one foot sand/gravel blanket will be placed over the liner to prevent liner desiccation and cracking. The side slopes shall be no steeper than 4 to 1. Refer to the COAOC Plan for construction and testing requirements for the liner construction. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 60 4.6.3 Drainage Concept -Post Closure The post closure drainage plan is presented on Plate 6. Drainage from the closed landfill will be collected on the final benches and drained along the bench to a series of drop chutes located perpendicular to the bench contours around the landfill. Compacted clay soil fill will be placed on the external benches at a depth of not less than six feet. This material will then be excavated at a slope of 0.5 percent towards the drop chutes for a distance of not more than 400 feet. Soil cover on the benches will, thus, be nowhere less than 4 feet. Drainage channel lengths will be less than 400 feet at a 0.5 percent slope making any chan- nel erosion unlikely. Sixteen drop chutes will be placed around the landfill and will consist of trapezoidal chan- nels protected with bedded riprap. The drop chutes will drain into perimeter ditches around the landfill base. Drainage channel dimensions and riprap specifications are presented on Plate 6. Perimeter drainage around the landfill has been provided to convey the landfill drainage offsite. The drainage channels will be protected with riprap and will discharge into existing drainages for conveyance off site. Offsite drainage has been designed to approximate current drainage conditions as closely as possible. Existing culverts and drainage channels have been utilized to discharge the land- fill drainage. Three new culverts have been proposed. One is proposed beneath the Community Ditch for the purpose of preventing inflow of runoff into the irrigation ditch. A second new culvert is proposed beneath Weld County Road 5 on the southwestern side of the landfill (Plate 5). This culvert feeds into an existing drainage swale which appears to have been cutoff by the road construction. Since this is a "new" drainage, in the sense that it does not currently receive flow, sedimentation protection has been provided. Sedimentation protection has been provided at all of the major locations where surface wa- ter is discharged off site. A third culvert will be placed under the primary site access to ac- commodate flow from Permanent Drainage 1.9. No significant impacts to surface water peak flows, sediment content, or water quality are anticipated off site by the proposed construction. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 61 4.6.3.1 Drop Chutes Drop chutes will be lined with ordinary riprap, size L. The riprap thickness on the drop chutes should be not less than 16 inches. Due to anticipated landfill settlement, grouting of the riprap on the drop chutes is not recommended. A two layer bedding material will be placed beneath the riprap on the drop chutes. A Type I bedding material will be placed to a thickness of 4 inches on the drainage floor. An addi- tional 4 inch layer of Type II bedding material will then be placed before setting riprap. Gradations for the Type L riprap and for the granular bedding material are given in Tables 11 and 12 below. Table 11 Riprap Dimensions for Type L Riprap at the E.R.D. Landfill % Smaller Than Given Size Intermediate Rock d50 by Weight Dimensions (inches) (inches) 70-100 15 9 50-70 12 35-50 9 2-10 3 Table 12 Bedding Specifications for Channel Lining for Type L Riprap at E.R.D. Landfill Bedding Material Percent Passing by Weight Percent Passing by Weight US Standard Sieve Size Type I Type II 3 90-100 1.5" 3/4" 20-90 3/8" 100 #4 95-100 0-20 #16 45-80 #50 10-30 #100 2-10 #200 0-2 0-3 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 62 4.6.3.2 Channel Lining Perimeter drainage channels will be protected with ordinary or grouted riprap. The perimeter drains with the exception of channel 1.1, will be lined with Type VL riprap and placed on a granular bedding if riprap is to be ungrouted. The bedding will consist of a four inch layer of Type I material covered with a four inch layer of Type II material beneath the riprap. If grouted riprap is utilized, the smallest fraction of the riprap gradation may be eliminated, as well as the bedding material. Channel 1.1 should be lined with Type L riprap if ungrouted, and Type VL if grouted. Riprap and bedding gradations are given in Tables 13 and 14. Ungrouted riprap shall be covered with a minimum of one foot of top- soil and seeded with the grass mixture specified in Section 6.0. Grout utilized for riprap should have a 28 day strength of greater than 2400 pounds per square inch and will have a high slump (5 to 7 inches). Grout penetration may be accom- plished by rodding, vibrating, or pumping the grout into the riprap voids. Table 13 Specifications for Type VL Riprap for the E.R.D. Facility % Smaller Than Given Size Intermediate Rock d50 by Weight Dimensions(Inches) (inches) 70-100 12 6 50-70 9 35-50 6 2-10 2 Cr,-31 3 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 63 Table 14 Specifications for Riprap Bedding Material for Type VL Riprap for the E.R.D. Facility Bedding Material Percent Passing by Weight Percent Passing by Weight US Standard Sieve Size Type I Type II 3" 90-100 1.5" 3/4" 20-90 3/8" 100 #4 95-100 0-20 #16 45-80 #50 10-30 #100 2-10 #200 0-2 0-3 4.6.3.3 Rock Properties Rock used for riprap or wire enclosed riprap shall be hard, durable, angular in shape, and free from cracks, overburden, shale, and organic matter. Neither breadth nor thickness of single stones shall be less that 1/3 their length and rounded stone shall be avoided. Rock having a minimum specific gravity of 2.65 is preferred; however, in no case shall rock have a specific gravity less than 2.50. Classification and gradation for riprap are based on a minimum specific gravity of 2.50 for the rock. Because of its relatively small size and weight, riprap types VL and L must be buried with native topsoil and revegetated to protect the rock from vandalism. 4.6.3.4 Culverts Culverts shall be constructed of corrugated metal and shall have a headwall with a rounded edge entrance. The culvert entrance shall have rounded edges with 0.25D as the radius to minimize the entrance losses. Type L riprap (minimum) shall be placed for a minimum of three culvert diameters upstream and downstream from the culvert entrance and exit. See Table 15 for culvert specifications. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 64 Table 15 Culvert Specifications for the E.R.D. Landfill Culvert Number Location Slope Diameter Number (feet) 1 Beneath 0.065 4 2 Irrigation Ditch 2 Beneath County 0.04 4 1 Road 5 3 Beneath Access 0.04 4 1 Road 4.6.3.5 Erosion and Soil Loss Erosion at the site will be temporarily increased during the operation phase but will be minimized by the early establishment of vegetation on completed slopes. Erosion will be further minimized by the use of benches in the final closure of the landfill outer slopes to limit slope length. Soil loss has been estimated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation for conditions during operations and closure. Soil loss during the operation phase is estimated at 0.038 inches per year. Soil loss after reclamation is estimated at 0.005 inches per year. Although estimated soil losses are insignificant, the site shall be inspected after major pre- cipitation events and shall be maintained as necessary. 4.6.3.6 Sedimentation The Sediment Delivery Index has been estimated using the Forest Service Sediment Index Method. An average Sediment Delivery Index has been estimated for the sixteen sub- basins based on site physical characteristics and a ground mulch (mechanically crimped in) of two tons/acre. The overall Sediment Delivery Index has been estimated as 0.25. Annual sediment delivery has been estimated for each of the significant drainages leaving the site and sediment traps are provided where warranted. Sediment delivery volumes are pre- sented in Table 16 for the main drainages which exit from the site. e i 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 65 Sediment leaving the site will be controlled by basins constructed with wire mesh gabions at the locations provided in Table 16 and illustrated on Plates 5 and 6. Gabion check structures will provide for sediment collection and will allow runoff to drain through the pervious riprap. Sediment basins are to be constructed to contain at least three times the anticipated annual sediment volume as presented in Table 16. Gabions used in check structures shall be constructed to extend a minimum of three feet beneath grade. A down- stream apron of loose Type L riprap is to be placed a minimum of 10 feet downstream from each trap to prevent scour. Gabion sediment traps have been designed for the 100 year, 24-hour flood event. Refer to Plate 8 for construction specifications for the gabion structures. Table 16 Sediment Delivery and Required Sediment Basin Capacity Discharge Point Contributing Total Area Sediment Sediment Basin Sub-Basins (acres) Delivery(ft3) Capacity($3) Drainage 1.10 at 4+3+2 42.4 1,480 4,440 Culvert 1 Drainage 1.6 at 11 15.4 526 1,580 Culvert 2 Drainage 1.6 at 12+13 34.3 1,195 3,590 West Culvert. Drainage 1.9 at 1+16 14.3 498 1,500 Fire Pond Drainage 1.1 SE 5+6+7 41.3 933 2,800 Site Comer Drainage 1.8 at 14+15 26.3 916 2,750 West Culvert Drainage 1.2 at 9 9 315 945 South Boundary 4.6.3.7 Sediment Control Basins Rock filler material for the gabions will conform to the specifications of ordinary riprap. The maximum stone size shall not exceed 2/3 of the basket size or 12 inches, whichever is smaller. The gabions are to be manufactured with double-twisted hexagonal mesh made 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 66 with annealed mild steel wire, zinc coated, of not less than 3.0 mm diameter. Gabion joining shall be accomplished prior to filling by passing the banding wire continuously through each mesh and making a double turn at each second mesh Additional gabion bas- ket specifications are presented in Table 17. Table 17 Gabion Basket Specifications for Sediment Trap Construction at the E.R.D. Facility Drainage Letter Length, Width, Depth Number of Capacity Minimum Rock Manual Code (ft) Diaphragms (yds3) Dimension Designation of Size A 6x3x3 1 2 4" G36 B 9x3x3 2 3 4" C 13x3x3 3 4 4" D 6x3x1 1 1 4" G18 E 9x3x1 2 1.5 4" F 13x3x1 3 2 4" G 6x3x1 1 0.66 4" G12 H 9x3x1 2 1 4" I 13x3x1 3 1.33 4" Sediment traps will require periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure that the wire mesh is in good repair and to remove accumulated sediment. Accumulated sediment re- moved from the traps will be redeposited on gentle slopes at the site and reclaimed during routine maintenance activities. 4.7 CONTROL OF NUISANCE FACTORS 4.7.1 Litter Control All incoming loads will be required to be covered, and signs will be posted at the access from Weld County Road 5 stating this requirement. Incoming loads which are not covered will be charged at twice the standard tipping fee. e .'.. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 67 The application of soil cover,compacting the refuse as it is unloaded, and limiting the size of the working face will be the primary operational methods employed to prevent litter from escaping the working face. During high wind operations(greater than 30 mph), the working face will be limited to 100 feet or less, and soil cover will be applied as the refuse is spread and compacted. The landfill will be closed, except for disposal of bailed waste, during sustained winds of 40 mph or greater, or gusts of 55 mph or greater, that persist for 1 hour or longer. An anemometer will be placed at the gate house or recycling facility to determine wind speeds. Wastes which escape the working face due to wind will be controlled by the construction of a 12 foot high litter fence around the landfill. The fence will be constructed of 2 inch by 4 inch wire mesh, or smaller, and will be adequately supported on steel or wooden posts. This fence will be policed daily, and cleaned as necessary to maintain its effectiveness. Adjacent properties and access roads will be policed daily, and manual litter pickup will be implemented as necessary. Litter pickup will also be implemented after strong wind events (winds greater than 30 miles per hour)and at least every two weeks to retrieve litter which escapes the fence. All such waste will be returned to the landfill working face and dis- posed. The volume of litter potentially generated on adjacent properties will be much less for this facility than for conventional landfills due to the recycling of paper and plastic products prior to disposal at the landfill working face. 4.7.2 Vector Control Disease and nuisance vectors will be controlled at the proposed landfill site by applying daily soil cover to the refuse. This soil cover will help minimize availability of animal food and harborage. 4.7.3 Odor Control Daily soil cover will be employed as the means of controlling odors at the landfill. Detectable landfill odors typically dissipate within a few hundred feet of the working face. The nearest residence is located approximately 800 feet from the landfill area. Odors are not expected to be problematic for any nearby residents. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 68 4.7.4 Dust Control Dust and particulate matter originating from winds, vehicular traffic, and operational equipment will be controlled by maintaining a good gravel surface on the access road to the landfill and also by limiting the speed of incoming vehicles to 20 miles per hour or less. A water truck will be on site at all times to wet roads and excavation areas as necessary to minimize fugitive dust generation. 4.7.5 Fire Control Fire protection at the site will be effected as follows: - No burning of wastes shall be permitted at the resource recovery/recycling and residuals disposal site. - Signs will be posted at the facility gate stating that smoking is not allowed within 100 feet of the recycling center or landfill working face and that hot loads(i.e., ash or coals) shall be declared at the gate. - Smoking will not be allowed within the recycling areas or at the working face by patrons or site personnel. -A full time spotter will be on duty to identify any hot loads and to enforce the no smoking mandate. - Hot loads will immediately be covered with soil and then segregated from the working face and extinguished. - Fires in the working face will be primarily controlled by the application of soil cover. Soil will be stockpiled for this purpose near the working face. - Secondary control of fires in the working face will be effected by application of water from the 240,000 gallon reservoir located north of the recycling facility. This reservoir will be equipped with a pump capable of delivering a total of 500 gpm. - All equipment operators will keep fire extinguishers on their machines to control small fires and as a general safety precaution. - In addition to the earth moving equipment (i.e., bulldozer, scrapers, and compactors), a 1500 gallon water truck will be on site at all times to aid in fire control. -Fire protection within the recycling center will conform to local, state, and federal codes for such facilities. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 69 The area is serviced by the Longmont Rural Fire Protection District located at 9119 County Line Road, Longmont, Colorado. This facility is accessed by dialing 911 or 651-0605. The phone number of this facility will be posted at all telephone locations at the site includ- ing, but not limited to, the gate house, the equipment maintenance building, and the recy- cling facility office. 4.7.6 Safety Control All employees will be provided with, and instructed in the use of, safety equipment. Normal safety precautions will be observed while working around the operating equip- ment. All employees will be trained in the use of first-aid techniques, and a well stocked first-aid kit will be maintained at the gate house, the recycling facility, and at the working face. Additional training for recognition of household hazardous wastes will be provided to supervisors within the recycling facility. Emergency telephone numbers for the hospital, fire department, and police department will be posted at all on-site telephones. Unauthorized access will be restricted by fencing and warning signs. Warning signs will include at a minimum the following: 1. schedule of tipping fees 2. notification of price for uncovered loads 3. speed limit within the facility property boundaries, maximum of 20 mph 4. prohibition of hazardous waste receipt and disposal 5. working face direction 6. equipment crossing(as needed) c3; 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 70 5.0 SITE MANAGEMENT 5.1 HOURS OF OPERATION, SHIFTS, AND LIGHTING The proposed facility will be operated seven days per week on a 24-hour basis in three shifts (07:00 to 15:00, 15:00 to 23:00, and 23:00 to 07:00). Adequate lighting will be pro- vided at the recycling facility, haul roads, and working face to insure safe working condi- tions at these locations during all shifts. Lighting along access roads will be minimal. Dusk to dawn lighting will be provided on power poles at the entrance to the landfill prop- erty, at the gate house, and within the truck staging area. Additional lighting will be pro- vided at the tipping floor for illumination of the critical unloading area. This lighting will be directed so that it does not illuminate off site areas. Lighting at the working face will consist of one portable, generator powered, lighting unit carefully placed and directed to illuminate the working face. The lighting unit will be capable of lighting up to three acres. The size of the working face will be maintained at 100 feet or less during all night time op- erations so as to minimize the amount of lighting required. The lighting units will be di- rected, and waste filling will be conducted, so as to prevent off site illumination in the di- rection of residences within one half mile of the site. 5.2 PERSONNEL, FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS The proposed facility will employ up to 100 persons most of whom will work in the recy- cling operation. The landfill operation will require a minimum of five employees during each shift (except during liner construction) to operate heavy equipment and to serve as spotters and gate keepers. The gate house will be manned at all times, and at least one spotter will be present at the working face at all times. During liner construction activities, the minimum number of employees for the landfill operations will be seven. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 71 The minimum equipment requirements for the disposal facility are as follows: -two scrapers, 22 cubic yard capacity minimum -one D-8, or equal, or larger bulldozer -one 826,or larger,waste compactor and alternate as necessary -one grader -one 1500 gallon water truck -one sheepsfoot compactor (as needed basis) -one flat wheel drum compactor(as needed basis) The structures required for site operation include a gate house, a building to house the re- cycling facility, and an equipment maintenance building. The gate house will consist of a small modular building (approximately 200 square feet) located on the access road as shown on Plate 5. The gate keeper will collect tipping fees and will direct landfill users to the appropriate unloading areas based on their declared waste load composition. The re- cycling facility building will initially consist of a 12,000 square foot steel building as lo- cated on Plate 5. Additional building structure will be added as necessary based on the in- coming waste volumes. The equipment maintenance building will be a 2,600 square foot steel building located as shown on Plate 5. All buildings at the site will be earth tone color. Toilet facilities will consist of portable sanitary toilets supplied and serviced by a local ven- dor. Toilets will be located at the recycling facility building. The parking area for visitors and employees, staging area, and recylables storage area, along with pimary on-site access roads, are shown on Plate 5. 5.3 WATER SUPPLY Water used at the site for personal hygiene and drinking will be provided by a local bottled water vendor. Two hundred forty thousand gallons of water for fire and dust control will be maintained in a lined pond to be located north of the recycling facility as shown on Plate 5. The source of this water will be from one of the following in order of owner preference: � "'f.;` 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 72 1. purchase of ditch water from Community Ditch 2. installation of an on-site nontributary well 3. trucked in from an existing nontributary well currently owned by Mr. Zigan of E.R.D. 5.4 CONTROL AND RECORD KEEPING Control of the incoming waste stream will be conducted as follows: Signs will be posted at the Weld County Road 5 access and at the facility gate which state that hazardous, liquid, and asbestos wastes are not accepted at the site. Each facility user will be asked if their load contains any of these materials and each load will be inspected as it is unloaded at the tipping floor for the recycling facility or as it is unloaded at the working face. One of the primary tasks of the full time spotter at the working face will be to check each load for po- tentially hazardous materials. E.R.D. will maintain written agreements with all account customers which will stipulate that no hazardous wastes will be received at the site. In addition, each invoice to account customers will include a statement that no hazardous wastes shall be received at the site. Copies of all pertinent records will be maintained at E.R.D. offices on site and at E.R.D. offices at 2200 East 104th Ave Suite 214B, Thornton, Colorado 80233. Accurate records will be maintained of the following data: -amount and type of incoming waste material -groundwater monitoring well water levels -results of the water analyses -landfill gas monitoring results -wind data from the on-site anemometer -as-built construction plans -test results and reports of all environmental control system construction(leachate sumps, wells, liners, liner drain layer, etc.) -deviations from the landfill operating plan -detectable unauthorized entry or dumping at the site S c6 1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 73 5.5 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE MONITORING Groundwater monitoring will be conducted quarterly in existing wells 1, 4, 4a, 5, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 23a and the proposed leachate sump extraction wells. It should be noted that wells 18, 21, and 22 currently do not produce water but shall at a minimum be monitored for presence of groundwater during the operational life of the site. One new well is proposed for the site to complement the existing wells. This well will be numbered - 53 and will be located approximately as shown on Plate 6. This well will be monitored for water level and water quality if it produces water. The new well shall penetrate a minimum of 10 feet into groundwater or to a total depth no less than 50 feet below the base of Phase 2 Leachate Sump if groundwater is not encountered. This well will be constructed in the same manner as existing wells completed at the site during this site evaluation. All of the groundwater monitoring wells discussed above shall be monitored during a minimum of four consecutive quarterly monitoring events upon approval of Certificate of Designation. Following this first year's monitoring, the wells in the Phase 2 area will not be monitored for water quality until one year prior to initiation of landfilling in Phase 2 at which time quarterly monitoring of water quality in these wells shall commence. In addition to the quarterly monitoring, water levels will be monitored weekly in the leachate sump extraction wells. Alternatively, a continuous data logger/transducer will be installed in the sumps to monitor water levels if leachate production occurs on a consistent enough basis to warrant the related expense of the installation. Water quality parameters as established by the Colorado Department of Health Waste Management Division shall be included in the minimum requirements for analyses at the landfill. Current CDH requirements for monitoring include the parameters in Table 18. In addition to these parameters, the proposed Phase 1 monitoring program as specified in Parts 258.54b and 258.59, Appendix I of the proposed Subtitle D Regulations (EPA, 1988)shall be monitored for the first four consecutive quarterly monitoring events in each of the wells specified above in order to establish baseline conditions with regard to these parameters at the site. Sampling of these wells shall be conducted in a consistent manner in accordance with EPA accepted sampling procedures. All sampling equipment shall be maintained in a clean 1. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 74 condition prior to, and during, sampling by washing and rinsing with distilled water prior to each sampling of each well. Dedicated samplers (pumps or bailers) will be provided in each of the wells which produce water. The wells shall be purged prior to sampling by re- moving sufficient water to insure that the sampled water is representative of the media from which it derives. A minimum of three well volumes shall be removed when sampling for inorganics, and five well volumes shall be removed when sampling for volatile organics. Monitoring of the pH and conductance of the discharged water will also be conducted. Table 18 Minimum CDH Groundwater Monitoring Parameters Required for Colorado Landfills temperature lead,dissolved conductivity mercury, dissolved pH zinc, dissolved chloride manganese, dissolved nitrate as N alkalinity,total nitrite as N chemical oxygen demand ammonia as N total organic carbon sulfate calcium iron, dissolved sodium cadmium, dissolved potassium magnesium Some of the wells at the site produce water very slowly and are not amenable to this type of well development. In such cases the well shall be fully evacuated and then sampled as soon as possible following sufficient recharge to fill the sample quantity requirements. Wells 4 and 23 are examples of this condition. All samples shall be filtered and preserved in the field. Proper chain of custody documentation will be carried out for all samples. 5.6 LANDFILL GAS MONITORING Landfill gas monitoring wells are proposed for the site as shown on Plate 6 and as detailed on Figure 11. These wells will be constructed in phases to correspond to Phases 1 and 2 of the landfill construction. Section 4.5.10 outlines which monitoring wells will be in- 21J-‘S1 9 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 75 cluded in the landfill gas monitoring during successive phase and module construction op- erations. Monitoring of these wells shall be conducted quarterly for explosive gas (both percent of the lower explosive limit and percent gas by volume in air) and static pressure. Care shall be taken to fully evacuate the well tubing prior to collecting a sample for field analysis of explosive gas. 5.7 CONCEPTUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION 5.7.1 Groundwater If contamination of ground water in the perimeter monitoring wells is identified during the monitoring events, the CDH Waste Management Division will be notified immediately, and a remediation plan will be developed within 60 days of notification. Potential methods of determining the extent of the identified contamination include surface and subsurface geo- physical surveys, and installation and sampling of additional monitoring wells. Potential remedial measures include pumping and treating of contaminated water for on-site treatment or disposal, and/or establishing physical barriers to the offsite migration of contamination. The geology of the site is such that on-site containment of contamination would likely be a cost effective option. 5.7.2 Landfill Gas Control The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) states that the concentration of ex- plosive gases generated by landfills shall not exceed five percent gas by volume in air at the property boundary. In order to demonstrate compliance with this regulation, a landfill gas monitoring system will be constructed in phases in conjunction with the landfill phasing at the site. The system will consist of construction of landfill gas monitoring probes on ap- proximately 500 foot centers around the landfill perimeter. Details for the probes are shown on Figure 11, and monitoring is discussed in Section 5.6. If explosive landfill gas from the proposed facility is detected above the RCRA limit at the property boundary, a methane gas control system will be designed and implemented as necessary. Such a sys- tem would consist of a series of landfill gas extraction wells within the landfill or around the landfill perimeter and associated piping network connected to vacuum blowers or com- pressors for removal of gas from the landfill. The extracted gas would be used beneficially �1 5S1 1 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 76 as an energy resource or would be flared on site in compliance with appropriate air emis- sions standards. The gate house and recycling facility structures will be equipped with explosive gas moni- toring devices and alarm systems which will activate at explosive gas concentrations of 20 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL). Should explosive gas be detected in these fa- cilities in excess of 20 percent LEL, specific control systems will be installed for gas con- trol within the building or at the landfill boundary. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 77 hose barb with air tight removable cap; hose barb threaded into 1" min. sch. 40 locking steel well protector — PVC cap solvent welded to PVC pipe 3/16 to 1/4" vinyl tubing con- nected to hose barb inside cap; ground hose barbs coupled together surface through cap with threaded couple concrete • •P. -4tif Is. %Om L• r•. S•r L1 Lr •ti• 1tir L. L.L r., • 1" min. sch. 40 perforated L. L•L L, PVC pipe, 20 slot, two r•. �•r L L•. L• L1 LrL• stir opposed rows of slots r.• r LJ LjL _E. L▪• •L• 8-12 silica sand or tit tr.': 'Lr pea gravel backfill L. LrL. �Lr r.. �•} `1 tire' Jmr 1" min. sch y; L r•. .r•r .L •L• r.. -r•r 40 PVC pipe ti. L•L - •L• r• P. - ' ■•r •tit •P. stir L. L. Lr 1' min. hydrated bentonite seal r.r.r•r -1 •LrLrLrLr •r-r.r.r . r•r•r•r • L� Lr PL.rPL.rPc.r L.• tirL.LrLr L= ;Om LrLr tt r.r.r'S L. LrLrL. 8-12 silica sand or L, LrLrLrLr pea gravel backfill L- L•L•L•L• r.tmee r•r-r•r r.r•r•r L=' LrLrLrLr r.r.r•r L. LrLrLrLr L. LrLrLrLr L_ LrLrLrLr L.L.L.L• r•r•r•r L. L= eetfL- boring r-r•r•r Figure 11 Conceptual Nested Landfill Gas a.- Monitoring Well, E.R.D. Landfill "'�' eri` 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 78 6.0 RECLAMATION PLAN 6.1 SCHEDULE Each module of the landfill will be closed and reclamation initiated as landfilling in the module is completed. In addition, as the outer slopes are completed on smaller operation areas within a module they will be covered with final soil cover and reclaimed. This prac- tice will greatly reduce the potential for soil erosion at the site. 6.2 GRADING AND SEEDBED PREPARATION As the final lift in each module is completed, final cover will be placed as described previ- ously and graded to meet the final contours illustrated on Plate 6. Upon completion of the grading, there will be no flat spots or depressions which could collect surface water drainage. The top layer of soil shall be topsoil or soil amended to perform as topsoil and shall be placed immediately prior to anticipated seeding operations. It may be necessary to roughen the compacted soil surface prior to placement of the topsoil to allow adequate binding of the topsoil to the surface of the landfill cover. Seedbed preparation over ungrouted riprap shall consist of placing a minimum of one foot of topsoil over the riprap and amending the soil with any necessary fertilizer. 6.3 FERTILIZATION Fertilizer application rates will be determined based on soil testing performed on potential - soils and on the seed mix specified in the following section. However, the fertilizer appli- cation rates shall be no less than 40 pounds per acre of available nitrogen and 40 pounds per acre of available phosphorous. The phosphorous will be incorporated into the top four inches of the topsoil. 6.4 SEEDING The species to be seeded and the seeding rates are listed in Table 19. These species were selected in conjunction with Soil Conservation Service recommendations, based on species �- sS1.3 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 79 compatibility with the climate, integrity of the clay cover, and surrounding vegetation and soils. The seeding rates presented in Table 19 are based on pure live seed; therefore, the actual amount of seed applied should be based on the percent purity and germination of the seed purchased. Generally the most successful seeding time in the area is between November 1 and April 30 for the species selected (USDA, 1990). Table 19 Seed Mixture for Reclamation of Disturbed Areas at the Proposed E.R.D. Facility Species Variety Percent of Mixture Drilled Rate lbs PLS/acre* Western Wheatgrass Arriba 40 6.4 Side Oats Grama Vaughn 25 2.3 Blue Grama L.ovington 20 0.6 Green Needlegrass Lodorm 15 1.5 *PLS = Pure Live Seed Whenever possible a suitable grass drill will be used to plant the seed. The drill shall have 7 to 12 inch spacing and be capable of planting fluffy seeds. It shall be equipped with a seedbox agitator, picker wheels, separate small seed box, double disc furrow openers with depth bands on every disc, and packer wheels. The seed shall be planted directly into cover crop residue if a cover crop has been used. In areas which are inaccessible with a drill seeder,the seed will be broadcast at twice the drilled rate, followed by covering with a harrow. Topsoil stockpiles shall be seeded when left unused for two months or more. These stockpiles shall be seeded with Luna Pubescent Wheatgrass a a rate of 14 pounds per acre. 6.5 EROSION CONTROL The seedbed will be protected from wind and water erosion prior to establishment of the permanent vegetation by application of mulch or planting of a cover crop. When mulch is used it shall consist of native hay crimped into the soil on the contour immediately follow- ing seeding. Wheat straw shall not be used. When a cover crop is used for temporary � o, .r 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 80 erosion protection, a sterile forage sorghum shall be planted at eight pounds pure live seed per acre. The sorghum should be planted between May 15 and June 30 Long-term erosion control will be effected by maintenance of the specified vegetation on the landfill and maintenance of the drainage structures and contours illustrated on Plate 6. 6.6 POST CLOSURE SITE MAINTENANCE Post closure maintenance will be performed, as needed, based on routine inspections of the site. Inspection of the site will include checking for surface soil cracking, ponding, ero- sion, proper slope, proper drainage, erosion of channels, condition of the wire mesh on the gabions, leachate and monitoring station conditions, and vegetative cover conditions. Inspection of the site will be conducted on a monthly basis. Any deficiencies encountered during the inspections will be recorded, and the necessary repairs will be made. These in- spections will begin during reclamation of Module A and will continue after site closure for a minimum of 5 years at which time a long term maintenance inspection program will be developed. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barfield, B.J., and Warner, R.C., 1983, Applied Hydrogeology and Sedimentology for Disturbed Areas, Oklahoma Technical Press. Boldt, T., July 10, 1990, Letter of Reclamation Recommendations for Proposed Waste Disposal Site Southeast of Erie Colorado, USDA, Longmont, Colorado Bouwer, H.,1989, "The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test - An Update", Groundwater Vol. 27, No. 3 Colorado Department of Health, March, 1989, Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 1988, Waterwell Construction and Pump Installation Rules, as amended. Colton, R.B. and Anderson, L.W.,1977, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Erie Ouadrangle,Map MF-882, USGS. Colton, R.B., March 6, 1990, Personal Communication by Kip White. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Ditch Company, 1984, Design Review Process and Design Criteria for Facilities of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. Harding and Lawson, 1989, Use By Special Review Permit Application for the Proposed Horst Landfill in Weld County, Colorado. Hynes, J.L., Colorado Geologic Survey, 1990, Personal Communication by Kip White Kirkham, R.M. and Rogers, W.E, 1981, Earthquake Potential in Colorado, Colorado Geologic Survey, Bulletin 43. Montoya, Mr., June 13, 1990, Personal Communication by David Douglass. Montoya, Mr., June 13,1990, FRICO, Personal Communication by David Douglass. OSHA, 29 CFR, Chapter XVII Pearl, R.H., 1974, Geology of Ground Water Resources in Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey. Repplier, EN., Healy, EC., Collins, D.B., and Longmire, EA.,1981, Atlas of Ground Water Quality in Colorado, Colorado Geologic Survey. Robson, S.G., 1983, Hydraulic Characteristics of the Principal Bedrock Aquifers in the Denver Basin, Colorado, USGS. Robson, S.G.and Banta, E.R., 1987, Geology and Hydrology of Deep Bedrock Aquifers in Eastern Colorado USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report. 8912-04 LP 7/30/90 page 82 Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, 1946, Columbine Mine Plan Map, Sheet 3 of 4, Provided by Colorado Geologic Survey, Recorded by Colorado Division of Mines. Soil Conservation Service, 1984, TR-55, Peak Flows in Colorado, SCS. Soil Conservation Service, SCS, Technical Guide-Irrigation Water Conveyance, 428-A-1. State of Colorado, 1973, Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1978, Design of Small Canal Structures. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973, NOAA Atlas 2, Vol 3. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1985, Earth Manual, Second Edition U.S. EPA, August 30, 1988, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, Proposed Rule. Federal Register. U.S. EPA, October 1975, Use of the Water Balance Method for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solic Waste Disposal Sites, EPA/530/SW-168. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, 1969, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, VOLS 1 and 2. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, September, 1980, Soil Survey for Weld County. Colorado. Southern Part. USGS, 1982, Preliminary Map of Horizontal Acceleration in Rock, Open File Report 82- 1033. F.)1 '" � a� APPENDIX A Lithologic Logs rics. 9 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 1 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/2 2/9 0 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 6" Sand, very silty, clayey, slightly moist yellow brown diameter locking steel well 5 protector, grouted in place. Well stickup: 2.29' grout 10 _ , cuttings Claystone, medium moist, carbonaceous in part, grey to yellow brown 15 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Harder drilling at 17 feet pipe 20 Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, very cemented in bentonite pellets, 1/4", places, Very hard drilling from 21' hydrated 25 (10 Claystone, gypsum noted in places lilt pp luxy 8-12 silica sand 30 Sandtone lense from 31 - 31.5 feet (very cemented, extremely hard) `` 43/6 @ 33 feet Softer at 32 feet, hard drilling at 33 feet j ;;"4 35 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded wx; screen, .020" slot n Sandstone, silty to siltstone, medium moist to moist, ii,xq 40 hard, weakly cemented, olive 62/5 @ 38 feet 45 42/6 @ 44 feet Total Depth 48.5 feet _ 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 50 - note: 43/6 indicates 43 blows _ with a 140 pound hammer falling 55 30 inches required to drive a standard split spoon sampler 6 inches Drilling Method: Hollow Auger Figure Hole Diameter 7 Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5211 .60 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist E' s;IS1 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 2 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments AA" Topsoil _ Clay, very moist, soft medium brown _ Placed well protector over _ slotted PVC in hole. Did not backfill around PVC. Bailed the 5 45/12 - hole dry after packer test to verify static water level. The Claystone, weathered, moist, carbonaceous in part, _ _ boring did not recover. Casing grey/olive 10 40/8 — pulled and well grouted to surface — on 5/3/90 harder drilling, Claystone not as weathered, greyer w/ _ Packer test conducted in this depth — boring at intervals: 15 — 9-15'; K= < 1 EE-7 cm/sec 15-50; K= 5EE-6 cm/sec 20 33/4 — 25 — 30 30/4 -_ Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, fine grained, weakly cemented, yellow brown/olive grey 35 - - harder drilling — 40 Claystone, slightly sandy, moist/ medium moist, yellow _ brown — 45 :::> 40/1 - Claystone, medium moist, yellow brown _ 50 Total Depth: 50 feet note: 45/12 indicates 43 blows with a 140 pound hammer falling 55 - 30 inches required to drive a standard split spoon sampler 12 inches Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4„ Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5234.33 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 3 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments JJJj` Topsoil Well completed with 6" diameter % locking steel well protector, Clay, very moist, soft, medium brown grouted in place. Well stickup: 2.20' 5 Claystone, moist, grey/yellow brown grout 10 Sandstone, very silty in places with interbedded thin 10 Claystone lenses, medium moist, grey/yellow 1/4" bentonite pellets Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, 15 yellow brown Y,. 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Claystone, moist, olive/grey pipe easier drilling 20 20 Claystone/Sandstone as above la al 25 Claystone, moist, olive/grey imi30 30 8-12 silica sand harder drilling _CI at 35 harder drilling with depth, turning more grey with depth 3 40 40 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot 45 -011 H-ipEl 50 50 55 left hole to 2/26/90. No water to 55' 2/26/90 Total "- 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Depth: 55 feet — Drilling Method: Hollow Auger Figure Hole Diameter 7 Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5195.26 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 4 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/26/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Clay, very sandy, very moist to wet, soft, yellow Well completed with 6" II�i brown diameter locking steel well 5 12/18 protector, grouted in place. Well stickup: 2.38' water grout 10 17/18 10 I I 15 37/12 bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated Claystone, medium hard, medium moist, grey/olive 20 20 ,i 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded l Hit toil` pipe J 25 s iiiiiiiii s l r: ,.,. € ' 30 30 8-12 silica sand x s s 35 d _ ? 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded il screen, .020" slot Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, harder p;, 40 drilling, moist, grey/olive 40 iiiiiiiii:tiiiiiiiii 45 Total Depth: 45 feet — - io 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 50 50— _ — note: 12/18 indicates 43 blows 55 _ with a 140 pound hammer falling _ 30 inches required to drive a — standard split spoon sampler 18 — inches Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5182.76 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist 4,1-C ,S a 9 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 4a I Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/26/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments rTopsoil Well completed with 6" diameter locking steel well protector, grouted in place. 5 Clay, very sandy, very moist to wet, soft, yellow Well stickup: 2.46 brown ii: I' grout I bentonite pellets, 1/4', 10 10 ii. I! hydrated 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Claystone, medium hard, moist, grey/olive pipe 15 — Total Depth: 15 feet — 8-12 silica sand _ _ 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 20 — 20 — screen, .020" slot - — 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 25 30 - 30— _ 35 - - 40 - 40 ~ 45 - - 50 - 50 r 55 - -- F � 7 f I Drilling Method: Auger Figure i Hole Diameter 4° Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: Kip R. White Environmental Scientist ' e-� F-�' Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 5 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White ,I Graphic. Date: 2/26/90 I Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 6" diameter locking steel well Clay, sandy to sand, clayey, moist, yellow brown protector, grouted in place. 5 44/18 Well stickup: 2.69' Stiffer drilling,w/ coarse sand particles intermixed, grout gypsum noted 10 30/6 10 bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated Sandstone, silty to siltstone, moist to medium moist, medium hard, yellow brown/olive Na UliNi 15 44/4 :ij 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded pipe harder drilling with depth l Hillls fi! 8-12 silica sand 20 20 ! g .P 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded -liiII25 � screen, .020" slot ' turning grey with depth, wet , x ;, Claystone, easier drilling, grey 'ii 30lillEIIIII:IIIIIll2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 130 _ Total Depth: 30 feet _ ' - - - 35 - ' - - 40 40— ! 45 - I50 4- 50— _ _ note: 44/18 indicates 44 blows _ with a 140 lb hammer falling 30 - - inches required to drive a 55 - -_ standard split spoon sampler 18 - _ inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4„ Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5202.79 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist t l-r ,rwI Ril Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 6 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/26/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil _ _ Well protector pushed over Sand, clayey, moist, medium brown _ slotted PVC in hole. Did not 30/6 — backfill around the PVC. 5 —_ Grouted to the surface 5/4/90 Sandstone, silty, weakly cemented with thin — 10 interbedded lenses of Claystone, yellow brown 10 — to grey _ 15 — 20 20 — easier drilling _ Claystone, grey, moist, iron stained, carbonaceous, — 25 :. ' gypsum noted _ harder drilling — 30 :':% 42/2 30- 35 40 40— _ 45 Total Depth: 45 feet — 50 50— note: 30/6 indicates 30 blows _ wfth a 140 lb hammer falling 30 inches required to drive a 55 = standard split spoon sampler 6 _ inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5293.78 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 7 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/26/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Clay, sandy, very moist, soft, medium Well completed with 6" brown, coarser grained with depth diameter locking steel well 5 11/6 protector, grouted in place. Well stickup: 2.98' / Clay, sandy to Sand, clayey, very moist, yellow brown grout 10 18/12 no recovery 10 15 Claystone, moist Sandstone, medium moist, very cemented, bentonite pellets, 1/4', "ironstone", rust hydrated 20 Claystone, moist, yellow brown 20 ' 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded i PP e i 25 olive/grey brown v JIM 30 30 8-12 silica sand very moist, softer, carbonaceous, dark brown 32-35' 35 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded moist, olive/grey brown k harder drilling screen, .020" slot 40 moist, with thin interbedded Sandstone lenses, olive 40 grey/ brown 45 Sandstone, silty, slightly moist, yellow brown harder drilling j 50 50 Claystone, moist, olive/grey, more grey with depth note: 11/6 indicates 11 blows 55 with a 140 lb hammer falling 30 inches required to drive a ` standard split spoon sampler 6 inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4„ Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5244.73 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S l.C'51 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 7 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Ititt Date: 2/26/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments_,,,,,,,,,,,,,.„z2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Claystone, same as above „, caved at 60.5' 65 Total Depth: 65 feet 65 � cuttings 70 — 70 — Drilling Method: Auger Figure 9 Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5244.73 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist i Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 7a Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/27/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Jvvv‘ Topsoil grout Clay, sandy, moist/wet, medium brown bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated 5 / fL " j 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded • PiPe 10/�— 10 8-12 silica sand % l 4 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot 15 Claystone, moist, yellow brown 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Sandstone very cemented, "ironstone", rust _ cuttings - Total Depth: 16 feet - caved at 15' 20 — 20 _ Well completed with 6" diameter locking steel well protector, grouted in place. 25 - _ Well stickup: 29.5" sampled 1 to 5' for proctor - - and remolded permeability 30 - 30— test 35 - - 40 - 40— _ 45 - - 50 T 50- - 55 - - Drilling Method: Holow Auger Figure Hole Diameter 7" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5245.10 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 8 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 2/27/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments AA" Topsoil _ _ sampled cuttings for proctor Clay, sandy medium moist to very moist, soft, yellow and remolded permeability dei brown _ from 1-4' 5 20/12 Sandstone/Claystone interbedded, silty, gypsum noted, — moist, olive — 10 25/8 10 — NA packer test conducted at intervals: Sandstone, silty, fine grained, weakly cemented, — yellow brown _ 15-60'; K= < 1EE-7 cm/sec 15 " — 33-60'; K= < 1EE-7 cm/sec Claystone, silty, slightly sandy, moist, —_ olive/yellow brown _ left hole open overnight. Water (from packer) at 20 harder drilling with depth 20 = surface on 2/27/90 at 16:26. Water at 6' on 2/28/90 at 10:00 A.M. sealed to surface 25 _ with cement/bentonite grout 30 30- - claystone, moist, carbonaceous, soft — 35 - 40 ?< 40— becoming less moist with depth, drilling becoming harder 45 — 50 harder drilling 50— note: 20/12 indicates 20 blows with a 140 lb hammer falling 30 55 inches required to drive a standard split spoon sampler 12 inches. Total Depth: 60 feet Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5268.48 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 9 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/4/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments an. Topsoil Clay, silty, with intermittent coarse grained sand _ particles, calcareous, moist, buff _ packer test conducted at 5 - 20/18 at 4' — interval: Claystone, moist, carbonaceous in part, grey _ 10-20'; K= < 1EE-7 cm/sec 10 Claystone, turning yellow brown, harder drilling 10 — NA Placed slotted PVC pipe in the 15 :.;:," — hole without backfill. Bailed the water from the packer test from grey again, but harder _ the hole. It did not recover. 20 >:<> 20 — grouted to surface 5/4/90 25 — harder drilling with depth — 30 30- 35 - very iron stained _ 40 much easier drilling, moist, carbonaceous, grey 40— hard drilling again, grey — 45 - 50 - Total Depth: 50 feet 50- - note: 20/18 indicates 20 blows 55 _ with a 140 lb hammer falling 30 inches required to drive a — standard split spoon sampler 18 inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5252.71 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist C� r,,� � Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 10 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/4/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments 'r Topsoil Well completed with a 4" Clay, silty, very moist, soft, light to medium brown diameter locking steel well 5 protector grouted in place. Q 8/12 @ 4' silty, moist, buff/It. brown Well Stickup: 2.21' 60/18 grout 10 Sand, silty, fine to medium grained, wet, light brown t 0 bentonite pellets, 1!4', hydrated Sandstone, clayey and silty in places, wet, yellow brown/olive 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 70/18 15 pipe 46/18 I y I{gyp 8-12 silica sand 20 20 dju s,ri 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot 25 Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, carbonaceous in part, wet, iron staining noted, yellow brown to olive. 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Claystone, moist, yellow brown/olive grey ' z„ a 30 _ Total Depth: 30.5 feet 30 35 — — 40 — ao- 45 — — 50 — 50— — note: 8/12 indicates 8 blows with �I 55 — _ a 140 lb hammer falling 30 inches `. _ required to drive a standard split spoon sampler 12 inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5247.89 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist 1,?;' * f},r*,� t{ Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 11 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/4/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 6" diameter Clay, moist, brown locking steel well protector grouted in place. 5 1 5/1 8 Sand,clayey, moist, yellow brown Well Stickup: 2.58' grout 10 57/12 10 Sandstone, slightly silty, weakly cemented, iron bentonite pellets, 1/4" stained, olive/yellow brown Q Claystone, olive brown 15 Sandstone, very silty, slightly clayey, moist to wet 8-12 silica sand 20 20 °I I 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush M threaded pipe wet at 22' 25 thin interbedded Claystone lenses encountered ? 30 30 y easier drilling 35 50/18 - I��, : 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 40 40 screen, .020" slot 45 very dense, weakly cemented, wet, light brown Total Depth: 45.5 feet — plastic slip cap (no glue used) 50 50- - _ note: 15/18 indicates 15 blows 55 — with a 140 lb hammer falling 30 inches required to drive a _ standard split spoon sampler 18 inches. Drilling Method: Auger Figure Hole Diameter 4„ Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: CME 75 Test Boring Elevation: 5252.20 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Cl.vS19 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 12 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/11/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments • Topsoil iA Clay, slightly sandy, very moist, soft, brown _ grouted to the surface 5/4/90 5 Claystone, hard, medium moist, olive/grey — 10 10 — NA Claystone/Sandstone, hard, slightly moist to - - medium moist _ 15 -' — Claystone, moist, very oxidized, red brown, with _ intermittent sandstone lenses — 20 Sandstone, very silty, medium moist, yellow 20 brown-grey _ Claystone, moist, grey, red brown in places 25 ?: — Sandstone, very silty, slightly moist _ 30--- 30— Claystone/Sandstone, interbedded, yellow — brown/olive grey _ 35 Claystone, moist, hard, intermittent _ 40 oxidized zones, yellow brown/olive, turning 40— _ grey with depth _ 45 - 50 '' Total depth: 50.5 feet 50— _ 55 - Drilling Method: Air Hammer Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5265.02 Klp R. White Environmental Scientist r .(' 1 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 13 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/12/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter locking steel well protector Clay, very moist, soft, brown grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: 1.96' grout harder drilling bentonite pellets, 1/4 inch 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 10 Claystone, very weathered, moist, yellow brown, t 0 pipe less moist with depth l si 15 8-12 silica sand . is 20 Claystone/Sandstone, less moist, more dense 20 jl 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded - % screen, .020" slot Sandstone, silty, moist to wet, red brown, 25 § k . 30 30 Total Depth: 32 feet plastic slip cap (no glue used) 35 - 40 40— _ 45 - 50 50— _ 55 - Drilling Method: Downhole Air Hammer Figure Hole Diameter 3.75 Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5263.98 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist �.r, Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 14 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/12/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments '16" Topsoil Placed slotted PVC in boring. Did Claystone, yellow brown, harder and more grey with _ not backfill. Pulled PVC on 5 depth — 5/4/90 and grouted boring to the — surface. Claystone, hard, medium moist to moist, grey with _ Conducted a packer test at 10 intermittent olive 10 — NA interval: — 30-40'; K= 2EE-5 cm/sec 15 less moist with depth, very hard 20 ::>:> 20 — Q —_ switched to air hammer — 25 more moist, slightly carbonaceous, very grey _ easier drilling at 26' 30 :1:? olive grey 30— _ 35 Sandstone, silty, very fine grained, weakly cemented, _ moist, brown to red brown Claystone/Sandstone, slightly moist, very hard _ 40 Sandstone as above 40 Claystone/Sandstone, moist, very cemented in places, _ yellow brown/grey — 45 - Total Depth: 45 feet 50 50- 55 - Drilling Method: Air rotary/Air hammer Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5256.19 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 15 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/12/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" Clay, slightly sandy, soft, red brown diameter locking steel well protector, grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: 2.73' Claystone/Sandstone, interbedded, moist to very grout moist, gypsum noted, yellow brown, carbonaceous 1 D tense 9-9.25 feet 10 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded pipe Claystone, moist, with some intermittent bentonite pellets, 1/4', 15 Sandstone, harder with depth, yellow hydrated brown/grey .; i_ n5 - 1 20 20 8-12 silica sand change to air hammer at 22' Ogg 25 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Sandstone, silty, moist to very moist, fine grained, . screen, .020" slot tog weakly cemented, red brown/yellow brown change to drag bit at 27' 30 jug J!+ 30 _ k wet at 30' �zry 5Nr k n,p r 35 cemented in places 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 37 feet _ 40 40— _ 45 - 50 50- - 55 = Drilling Method: Air rotary/Air hammer Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5249.78 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 16 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/12/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Yka Topsoil — Sand, clayey, wet _ grouted to surface 5/3/90 5 Claystone, sandy in part, medium moist, grey/yellow brown _ 10 .2: 10 _ NA 15 :22 _ 25 30— 30 `: ?> — harder drilling, less moist _ 35 1:3:x - Claystone/Shale, sandy in part, grey, easy _ "4:1.48 drilling with intermittent sandy and cemented _ lenses 40 ifif 40— :: - :OM - * — 45 . r _ 50 50— ;:i Est: :e4 — 55 ?` _ Drilling Method: Air rotary/drag bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5243.75 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 16 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/12/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone/Shale as above• _ grouted to surface 5/3/90 65 — NA Total Depth: 68 feet — 70 70 — Drilling Method: Air rotary/drag bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5243.75 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 17 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Awl' Topsoil — grouted to surface 5/3/90 Sandstone, silty, medium moist to moist, yellow _ 5 brown/olive grey — Conducted packer test in boring at interval: 20-53'; K. < 1EE-7 cm/sec 10 10 — NA 15 —_ Claystone, moist, medium hard, olive — grey/yellow brown _ 20 20 — 25 moist, medium hard, grey, blocky, intermittent 30 30— S:: lenses are iron stained 35 — 40 40— _ ren ten. Sandstone/Shale, moist, grey, harder drilling _ 45 . - eXi4 �: Claystone/Shale, moist, medium hard, grey, _ �a becoming darker grey with depth, carbonaceous in A'vt 504yr;: part 50— Total Depth: 53 feet — 55 — Drilling Method: Air rotary/Drag bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5219.31 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist C F r.7:1 1__i) Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 18 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Sand, clayey, medium moist, brown locking steel well protector Sandstone, very silty, moist, yellow brown grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: 2.58' grout Claystone, yellow brown/grey 15 , cuttings 20 moist, hard, carbonaceous seams less than 4" thick 20 ,.,„? 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded pipe 25 i::: — 30 _:x::: :::... intermittent thin lenses of sandstone, very silty 35 >:i< 40 45 :::' - bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated 50 50 Coal lense, dry, 50-52 feet 8-12 silica sand Claystone as above 55 Y Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5202.04 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 18 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments pee �k Claystone, as before .�' „yg t !it u �� HIN 65 Claystone/Shale, carbonaceous, medium moist, Jillq Mlti rl'ii, •} dark grey !�' m �i' :':• qllilitl is 0 .❖ l! j a�dki!i 70 ::r•.;: 70 Olh MA S8•;.; •'. 7 titit ,:iddid log 75 °.a: tililli too. Coal, dry •••••❖' ,Fidg km Claystone/Shale, medium moist, hard, grey MO Nlitt km 80 ::::ti 00-10 plillElll ::3i 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded o eliggi pipe 440 —501I liTi511 r';:e diddc dtde ;85 • q IiIVA :1`•' 90 8-12 silica sand 90 Jt :t 's' 4:X 95.):44 0 ks€ ^o, :s i r $ tillit 100�n 100-=°q€ jr:s, !'y 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded F'•' _my ` screen, .020" slot }.;:fi ;:qt;; 105 •g:il :»v :::::$ slightly carbonaceous 110-111' 1 10':? 1 10 ::•.; poi Hy'iddi.dd t:t% Claystone/shale as before — 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 112 feet — 115 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5252.04 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 19 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Sand, loose, medium moist, yellow brown locking steel well protector grouted in place. Claystone/Sandstone lenses, olive grey to yellow Well Stickup: 2.06' 5 grout bentonite pellets, 1/4', 10 10 hydrated v 15 y9 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Sandstone/Siltstone, with intermittent Claystone lenses pipe 20 very moist to wet at 20' 20 8-12 silica sand Sandstone, fine to medium grained, buff to light brown 25 ., 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot 30 Claystone/Shale, moist, grey 30 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 33 feet — 35 _ 40 40- - 45 - 50 50- - 55 _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5192.22 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist (?1 4 (47.';1,.9 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 20 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments PA ' Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Sand, very silty, clayey, loose, yellow brown locking steel well protector Clay, sandy, very moist, light brown grouted in place. 5 Sandstone, very silty, intermittent cemented zones Well Stickup: 2.08' make drilling harder, yellow brown grout Q bentonite pellets, 1/4', t0 10 hydrated —wi1 ,� iimi Ii 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded w 15 PIPe i- iIj giii Sandstone, silty, wet, cemented in places, yellow —lit,..::::::11/ii, 8-12 silica sand 20 20 r: 1 ii1 brown 1 Iixl t . i' 25 Claystone, very moist to wet, dark brown to grey a i 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot 5 � moist, olive grey to yellow brown 9 i —Ni`:::::: 30 30...:: Claystone/Shale, moist, grey f a 35 : ' 14 ;i ii' —,tiiii � r , 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 39 feet 40— cuttings 40 — _ I- _ 45 — — 50 L 50- 55 — _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5186.39 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S .;f;1 1 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 21 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments ,�•�•�•�- Topsoil Well completed with 4" Clay, slightly sandy, moist, brown diameter locking steel well Claystone, moist, carbonaceous from 3-5' protector grouted in place. 5 ?> Well Stickup: 3.02' Claystone, medium moist/moist, olive/yellow brown grout 10 10 Efi cuttings bentonite pellets, 1/4", hydrated 15 Sandstone, very silty, clayey, medium moist, olive MIA OE 20 20 I 25 very cemented zone from 25-26', light brown a .,N'k silty, medium moist, very fine grained, yellow brown 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded -t 30 pipe 30 Claystone, olive grey/yellow brown 35hiPiigal 40 very carbonaceous in places 40 8-12 silica sand 45 50 ;:' 50liain 841 - 55 Sandstone, very silty, clayey, yellow brown _ y Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5283.06 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist C.l C; ” Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 21 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone, as above, carbonaceous in places r r %�m libiw ;obi 65 1 1, i . litillAb Ilk 70 . 70 ill illMIK °O•° _Claystone/Shale, medium hard, medium moist, :SS::: a VIC +$:: slightly carbonaceous in places, grey -bin lillibill St:: _IIIIIIillib ION 75 Y Ass :ibmim ea 400 ne- r$� 80 '' 0 80`% ' � v' limo r 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded H:::$ kw o ,} pipe 65ilillid i�3 Fliligilil Ililldi s%::: willb e. j I e •••' i '�: 8-12 silica sand 90 •igi 90 _lilliiiiii RP ••:::: :44A -NIP YAM 95❖-:-: • f Ri %••• tat :}1J A ••♦ { 100 Si 100 K `', _O bi,::C 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded ::: R screen, .020" slot � :lb.::: illibillil f 9 10 5 4:::::!: —Iiiibbili— Abe ::53: abblibb.--2: mid •`SS .,Sv, 110 Z}••• 110 ••x •• 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 112 feet _ 115 — _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5283.06 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Q'1.� cs-3 1 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 22 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments .,.. sand, silty, clayey, moist, medium to yellow brown Well completed with 6" diameter locking steel well protector Sandstone, fine to medium grained, olive grouted in place. 5 grey/yellow brown Well Stickup: 2.35' grout 10 .. 10 Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown 15 cuttings Sandstone, silty, medium moist, yellow brown 20 very silty, clayey, moist, yellow brown 20 — 25 ... Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown - 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 30—""" pipe 30 _...... 35 :'. - ..: .. 40— ;s:a 40 :>i _ 45 50 55 44,x, -. s - Claystone/Shale, medium moist to moist, grey 00- Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 3 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5282.04 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 22 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/13/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments €- ,. Claystone/Shale as above _ L J7}: _ 65 Sandstone, silty, medium moist, grey with some — , yellow brown _ ';€€'s'; Ella _lllll, all cuttings 70 vx4K 70 f.,�, - lllll ;al `44), Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey — , Illlll ,:4d: 75{ _ :4 0 _ 80—.. - .....,, 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded 80 ' :::$ - sss, : o pipe sss ;ass 85 carbonaceous in places — �'�1 1/4" bentonite pellets, 444410 hydrated e 90 :):4-,N9 _iiet i lad -lit �`.. Il t �' 5'NM _ 6 Ill 9 ' is -SIB nil 8-12 silica sand Sandstone, very silty, to Siltstone, medium moist, 100 100 —OM MIll grey N 'NS [Illiii;j1 105. t'et Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey :.'1 K40 110 .: 110 44 `•i. $ i}):4, i'•.O. 115'KW Pr.; Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 3 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5282.04 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist el 4'.et.::i fr, Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 22 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/13/90 Graphic. Well Construction Detail Comments Log Lithology 4y ii grey re Claystone/Shale, sandy, medium moist, 9 I' $ i!, �rj y it ll 1253::°4: iyjy lla y ••NN' "MN Milli Ifij 440 lig! 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded q' iiiir 130 Pipe 1303 V ::41.: fhb 135:+X4 o;: 8-12 silica sand t;;:40,� 140,.;•:A Shale lense, sandy, harder drilling 140 "r,'". I . a od' ID 145';.3`4 very cemented hard lense 145-146' I: I, Sandstone, silty, moist, fine grained 150 iliSilli :WS Alt, illjlijii, 150 15549):.•, ;,!, 2" sch. 40 PVC flush threaded ;.,.,. r " screen, .020" slots NNNN i4••••••••1 .. '' tf3 Claystone/Shale, very silty, medium moist, grey ji ,t' M iiiiiiiiiiii a..N 1 60'••oe•. 1 60 Dull Ric :;•g••. t Y•r••. ii'••'. very cemented lense at 163-164' 1 65 ti�'�';' .•: :$y 170.'••:°.• 170 ligill: MI: ,ti 4 Total Depth: 172 feet ' 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 175 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 3 of 3 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5282.04 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist C'.i rr-;.5' z Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 23 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter locking steel well protector Clay, very moist, soft, brown grouted in place. Well Stickup: 2.59' 5 stiffer, dark brown 10 10 grout Claystone, medium moist to moist, olive grey, harder drilling bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated 15 very carbonaceous seam, black 16-17' _BIG ;r harder drilling iiiiiiiiii INA 20 20 —-ilikj, iikkii moist, hard, yellow brown/olive grey 1 iiiiPiii 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded - d IIIM�pe pipe e J 4 N .irt�ii 25 Sandstone, very silty, clayey, moist, olive grey _ l k ON i Claystone as before ,h ii iii ',j 8-12 silica sand 30 Sandstone, medium moist, yellow brown 30 —gill]7, IllillY Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown sd 35 more grey with depthiiiiiik i Sandstone, clayey, medium moist to moist, red brown 40 very hard drilling, very cemented 40-42' 40 s 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Claystone, moist, grey/yellow brown :. i screen, .020" slot 45 Claystone/Shale, medium moist, carbonaceous in part, grey 50 50 _ 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded Total Depth: 52 feet Cuttings 55 — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5184.73 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S.1.t_+4'.:,',F11..4.) Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 23a Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/10/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil grout /� Clay, very moist, soft, brown bentonite pellets, 1/4', hydrated 5ii 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded J h y pipe Q stiffer, dark brown ' �8-12 silica sand 104- 10 —_,V+2717‘.,°i 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Total Depth: 10.5 feet screen, .020" slot _ 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 15 — — — _ Well completed with 4" diameter 20 _ 20 _ locking steel well protector grouted in place. — _ Well Stickup: 2.04' 25 - - 30 30— — — 35 - - 40 - 40- 45 - _ 50 '- 50- 55 - _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5184.94 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Cl9±(7.43 r) .. . . .. ... . . .. .. ... ... Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 24 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/1 6/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments 'cc" Topsoil — Sand, clayey, medium moist, medium brown _ grouted to surface 5/3/90 Sandstone,clayey, moist, yellow, brown 5 _ 10 10 - NA 15 20 Sandstone, silty, medium moist, yellow brown 20 25 Claystone, medium moist, yellow brown/grey _ 30 _ 30 Sandstone, silty, medium moist, yellow brown — 35 - Claystone, moist to medium moist, grey/yellow brown carbonaceous to coal 38-39' _ 40 40— _ Claystone as before _ 45 50 50- 55 Sandstone/Claystone, medium moist, yellow brown/grey — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5265.99 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 24 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic.Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments 65 Claystone, moist, grey/yellow brown — NA Total Depth: 67 feet _ 70 70 r- r L r Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5265.99 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist ............. Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 25 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Iv Topsoil Clay, moist, brown _ Grouted to surface 5!3/90 Sandstone, silty, medium moist, cemented, yellow _ 5 brown — 10 Claystone, moist, yellow brown/grey 10 _ NA 15 Sandstone, silty, yellow brown — 20 20 _ 25 — Claystone, yelow brown/olive grey _ 30 Sandstone, slightly clayey, yellow brown 30— _ 35 pxd. — Claystone/Shale, carbonaceous ):44r4444. 40 ` 40— ):V - S 45 _ rtiv:; — yee. _ 50 X; 50— +:Jt9� _ yifj - 55 ei - :4 very carbonaceous 54-55' AV: _ }': — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5249.16 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 26 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments j Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter locking steel well protector grouted in place. Clay, very silty, to Silt, calcareous, moist, brown 5 Well Stickup: 2.67' � �� grout /10'vn„ 10 Sandstone, slightly clayey, moist, yellow, brown _ —•••••; •• •• cuttings 15 —m ..,.,. 20 20 Claystone, moist, yellow brown/olive grey mJ bentonite pellets, 1/4" 25 ; v- i a - xs 'F�j. fi$ Ntl 30 carbonaceous zone from 29 to 29.5' 30- $ Jt 8-12 silica sand Claystone, with intermittent thin sandstone lenses, j medium moist to moist, olive grey/yellow brown j" jlRilkil chi,: 35 2" sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush threaded 40 40 45 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" slot, flush threaded s 50 50 l: _ ., threaded end plug - Total Depth: 52 feet _ 55 _ Boring not completed as a well until 5/3/90. Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5249.91 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist tr31 r R1.: Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 27 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Well Construction Detail Comments L////o////g Lithology A� Topsoil _ "''//// Clay, very moist, brown grouted to surface 5/4/90 ! Claystone, moist, yellow brown/olive grey 5 10 >5 grey 10 — NA yellow brown as before _ 15 < — 20 — 20 — 25 — Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, _ yellow brown 30- - very hard drilling at 29', Sandstone lense, cemented 30 35 :::,: Claystone, medium moist, grey/ yellow brown 40— 40 greyer with depth 45 - 50 Total Depth: 50 feet 50— _ 55 - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5268.73 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 28 Project No.: 8912.04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments unr�. Topsoil _ A Clay — grouted to surface 5/3/90 5 Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow — brown — 10 10 _ NA 15 _ — Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, yellow brown /grey — 20 Claystone, medium moist, grey/yellow brown 20 — Sandstone, extremely hard, cemented and oxidixed 22-23' Sandstone, yellow brown — 25 — 30-- 30 — Claystone, with thin intermittent Sandstone _ lenses, yellow brown/grey — 35 ':` — a0— 40 — 45 — 50— 50 ::':. — 55 >;:i — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5220.66 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 28 cont. Project No.: 8912.04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Well Construction Detail Comments Log Lithology Claystone, as above — 65 Xt — NA Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey Total Depth: 67 feet — 70 — 70 — — L - i r - Drilling Method: Air rotary/drag bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5220.66 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist (.- 31 �) c r., Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 29 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic.Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments ` Topsoil Clay, moist, brown _ grouted to surface 5/4/90 Claystone, moist, yellow brown/grey 5 >. — carbonaceous from 7 to 8', moist, blue/grey _ 10 2 < moist, grey 10 _ NA • intermittent yellow brown lenses _ 15 _ 20 I: 20 _ 25 — carbonaceous lense 26-27', less moist with depth 30— 30 Sandstone, clayey, medium moist, yellow brown Claystone, with intermittent thin carbonaceous — 35 `» - lenses, grey _ 40 ' 40 _ Sandstone lense, medium moist, grey Claystone, medium moist, grey — 45 _ carbonaceous from 47 to 48' g;:a 50`'°" Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey, harder drilling 50— "Aft. - 4%4 i ff,'' 55 VF: _ CNJ _ Total Depth: 58 feet _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5232.44 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 30 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil _ Clay, very moist, calcareous, brown grouted to surface 5/3/90 5 Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, moist, olive/yellow _ - brown _ 10 — NA 10 - — Claystone, moist to medium moist, grey with _ intermittant yellow brown/olive lenses 20 — 20 ::< — 25 — less moist with depth 30— 30 ': — 35 a0— 40 ?:'s — Sandstone, slightly clayey, medium moist, yellow brown 45 - 50 Claystone, moist to medium moist, grey 50— _ 55 Sandstone, silty, medium moist, yellow brown _ Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Drilling Method: 1 of 2 Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5209.88 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist 7.1...9 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 30 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Loy Li[hology Well Construction Detail Comments Sandstone, silty, medium moist, grey NA 65 — 70 — 70 — 75 — 80— 80 — Total Depth: 82 feet 85 — 90 — 90 — Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Drilling Method: 2 of 2 Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5209.88 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 31 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/16/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments rA Topsoil Clay, very moist, brown grouted to surface 5/4/90 5 Claystone, moist, some gypsum noted, olive — grey/yellow brown _ 10 '< 10 — NA 15 — carbonaceous, moist, grey/ black — olive grey _ 20 yellow brown 20 — Sandstone, very silty, slightly clayey, medium moist, — light brown _ 25 >;: — Claystone, moist, some gypsum noted, olive — grey/yellow brown _ 30 :><> 30— _ 35 — 40 carbonaceous 40-40.5 40— _ 45 medium moist, more grey 50 ::::: 50— _ Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey Sandstone very silty to Siltstone, hard, cemented, moist, 55 grey _ Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey _ Total Depth: 58 feet — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5214.47 Klp R. White Environmental Scientist Boring No.: 32 Project Name: ERD Landfill Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/16/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Clay, with some gravels locking steel well protector grouted in place. 5 :'; Claystone, grey, yellow brown Well Stickup: 2.69' grout 10 10 cuttings 15 20 ::;::: 20 bentonite pellets, 1/4" 25 Sandstone, silty, slightly moist, yellow brown ,iii 1iq 8-12 silica sand -y- ri „r 30 30 L „- ! 2" sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush threaded 35 , Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown —114--1114 40 Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist/moist, 40 2" sch 40 PVC screen, .020" olive grey/yellow brown slot, flush threaded V 45 . threaded end plug 50 Claystone as before 50- Boring not completed as a well until 5/3/90. Water contacting 55 ≥» _ the unsaturated claystone caused the hole to swell closed below 47.3' : y; Claystone/Shale, medium moist, greyCe — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5309.06 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist etr, �1 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 32 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/16/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey _ 65 _ see note previous page 70 70 — 75 — 80 80— Total Depth: 82 feet _ 85 — 90 90 — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5309.06 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist ate t ..• P f7.-71 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 33 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/16/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Y Topsoil — jClay, very moist, brown _ grouted to surface 5/3/90 5 Claystone, medium moist, yellow brown/olive grey 10 ::> 10 — NA 15 5: — 20 ::22. 20 — very carbonaceous from 24 to 25' 25 30 30_ 35 — 40 :::: 40- 45 Claystone, carbonaceous in places, medium moist, grey _ 50 ' ' 50— _ 55 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5238.49 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S F'f;19 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 33 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Well Construction Detail Comments Log Lithology Claystone, as above 65 — NA Total Depth: 67 feet — 70 F 70 75 — — L — 80 L 80 r _ 85 r L - 90 L 90 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5238.49 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 34 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Well Construction Detail Comments Log Lithology "AA Topsoil _ Clay, very moist, brown grouted to surface 5/4/90 5 >::." — Claystone, medium moist, some iron staining, grey — 10 10 — NA 15 yellow brown to olive grey _ 20 :: 2 20 — 25 30— 30 >%:i — 35 40 `:":? 40— _ 45 50 :::...> 50- - Sandstone, silty, medium moist, yellow brown _ 55 - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5281 .58 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 34 cont. Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic.Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown _ 65 — NA Total Depth: 67 feet 70 — 70 — 75 — — 80 C 80— 85 90 — 90 1- Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5281 .58 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 35 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Clay, sandy, moist, brown locking steel well protector _- - Claystone/Sandstone, moist, olive/yellow brown grouted in place. 5 fir Well Stickup: 3.00' Sandstone, silty, with intermittent clayey lenses, grout 10 medium moist to moist, yellow brown 10 Ni im cuttings 15 20 20 Sandstone, very clayey from 20', moist, yellow brown bentonite pellets, 1/4" ,c C 25 Cllaystone, moist to medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown 30 8-12 silica sand 30 - - i 35 2"sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush , threaded 40 ao Claystone, carbonaceous in places from 40', grey "7:1! 45 2"sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" -_i. ! slot, flush threaded 50 ` 50 Plastic slip cap (non glued) 141.2; - { — *pi Claystone/Shale, silty, medium moist, grey This boring was not initially 55 **pi — completed as a well, but it vi:w Total Depth: 58 feet _ produced water which caused the — boring to swell shut at 52.5' Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75 Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5289.37 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist el C.1fr Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 36 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/16/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments "" Topsoil Sand, clayey, silty, moist, brown to light brown _ grouted to surface 5/4/90 5 Sandstone, medium to fine grained, moist, light brown/buff 10 10 _ NA Claystone, with some gypsum noted, yellow brown 15 >:' /olive grey _ 20 20 — 25 _ 30— 30 <: — 35 Sandstone, clayey, medium moist, yellow brown Claystone, medium moist, olive grey to yellow 40— 40 brown 45 50 '." 50— _ 55 _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/8" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5290.07 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 36 cont. Project No.: 9912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 4/16/90 Graphic. Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone, medium moist, olive grey to _ yellow brown _ NA 65 — Total Depth: 67 feet — C 70 — 70 — 7s 7 - L 90— 80 r — as 7 - C 90 — so L — E - 1- - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 5 7/9° Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Failing Test Boring Elevation: 5290.07 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S i F..S 3 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 37 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 4/17/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments w" Topsoil _ Sand, clayey, silty, moist to very moist, brown — grouted to surface 5/4/90 5 < — Claystone, medium moist to moist, olive/yellow — brown 10 10 — NA Sandstone, medium moist, olive/yellow brown — 15 — 20 Sandstone, red brown from 21.5 to 23' 20 — Sandstone, medium moist, light brown from _ 23' — 25 — 30 Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown 30- - 35 - 40 :'.::: 40— 45 Sandstone, medium moist, olive/yellow brown — 50 Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown 50- - 55 — becoming more grey with depth — carbonaceous lense 59 to 61' _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5241 .22 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist el 7,C4I '� Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 37 cont. I Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White �I Graphic. Date: 4/17/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Claystone as above 40).14 {+X. ?:4 — Claystone/Shale, very silty, sandy, slightly moist to — 65KI::: medium moist, grey, carbonaceous in part$444- 4+X _ *f4 70 easy drilling 70— NA :} von e, — 4444 harder drilling, more silty, less moist _ 75 i` ca:•• intermittent hard zones _ 80 r 80 44 Sandstone, silty to Siltstone —_ 85 1444 CLS/Shale, carbonaceous 86-89'441.1 — 90 90— �::4 Claystone/Shale, silty, slightly moist to medium — j _ �• moist, grey v. 95:n{ — ;O11: , y•;7,•'. 100..44 100 4444 •:'R Shale, carbonaceous in part — 105 44, Total Depth: 108 feet 110 — 110- 115 — — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5241 .22 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist tipt r.3 .. Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 38 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/21/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 4" diameter Sandstone, very weathered from 0.5-3', very hard and locking steel well protector cemented in places from 3', moist, yellow brown grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: 2.20' grout bentonite pellets, 1/4' Mf 10 10 v°I 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded more moist from 10' pipe f 8-12 silica sand 15 _ 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded screen, .020" slot QClaystone, moist, olive grey/ yellow brown 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded — Total Depth: 18 feet _ 20 - 20 — 25 - — 30 - 30— _ 35 - - 40 - 40- 45 - - 50 - 50— _ 55 - - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5286.85 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 39 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/21/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil, poorly developed Well completed with 4" diameter Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, moist to medium moist, locking steel well protector olive grey/yellow brown grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: 3.67' grout Claystone, moist, olive grey 10 10 bentonite pellets, 1/4' �` 8-12 silica sand 15 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Q pipe 20 20 1 25 — Sandstone, moist to wet, yellow brown 30 30 2" sch. 40 PVC, flush threaded Claystone, moist, olive grey ` screen, .020" slot Sandstone, wet, yellow brown very cemented from 32.5' a 35 Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown Total Depth: 36.5 feet _ "r!! ' 2" PVC well cap, flush threaded 40 40— _ 45 — 50 50— _ 55 — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5206.96 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 40 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil _ Sandstone, silty, clayey in places, medium moist, yellow — to rust brown 5 — 10 - Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, moist, yellow 10 - brown/olive grey _ 15 _ NA Claystone, some gypsum noted, moist/medium moist, — olive grey/yellow brown 20 >:::;: 20 — Sandstone, clayey, well cemented, medium moist, yellow _ brown — 25 — Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, yellow brown/olive grey _ 30 -' 30— _ 35 Sandstone, fine grained, medium moist, yellow _ brown — 40 40— .14.14 Y Claystone/Shale, carbonaceous in places, mediumAZ _ moist, grey/yellow brown turning grey at 42' pea 45 Ktilt — 50:i1E1I 50— I;:S J}; 55 ?aX.ti _ Total Depth: 57.5' — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5213.70 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 41 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/22/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments /yy/"' Topsoil A Clay, sandy, moist, light brown Well completed with 4" diameter locking steel well protector 5 Sandstone, silty, with thin lenses of interbedded claystone, grouted in place. moist, light brown Well Stickup: 2.52' grout 10 10 1/4" bentonite pellets 15 Claystone, moist, olive grey/ yellow brown _DI VII 8-12 silica sand 20 20 roil milli Sandstone, very silty, clayey, well cemented, medium moist, yellow brown " HM "F 25 1 pplpl pir 30 30 HIM Claystone, moist, olive grey/ yellow brown 35 Sandstone/Claystone interbedded, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown I h/ 40 40 Sandstone, silty, clayey in places, medium moist to moist, yellow brown II 2" sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush $5 threaded slightly silty and weakly cemented from 41' mi moist to very moist from 47' 50 very cemented from 48-50' 50 clayey from 51-55' then clean, moist and medium 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" Q grained to 57' I slot, flush threaded 55 '+ Claystone/Shale, medium moist, grey/yellow brown flush threaded PVC end cap, Total Depth: 58.5 feet — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5220.24 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 42 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/22/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments stia. Topsoil grout Well completed with 6" diameter read Clay, moist, brown locking steel well protector Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, very moist, yellow brown grouted in place. 5 Q a - `Well Stickup: 2.89' Claystone, moist, brown to olive grey 04 !,,§! 1/4" bentonite pellets iu 101-: 10 mei 8-12 silica sand Sandstone, fine to medium grained, wet, yellow brown i J, y 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" r r a slot, flush threaded with 15 Claystone, moist, olive grey/ yellow brown threaded end cap Total Depth: 17 feet _ boring caved from 17 to 13.3' 20 - 20 — 25 — 30 - 30- 35 - - 40 - 40— _ 45 - _ 50 - 50- 55 - - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5273.39 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist r•1 ,51 s) Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 43 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments :� Topsoil / Clay, very moist, light to yellow brown — Claystone, carbonaceous in places, moist, olive _ • grey/brown — 10 > 10 — Sandstone, clayey, medium moist, yellow brown _ 15 ... . — NA Claystone, sandy in part, medium moist, yellow — brown/grey _ 20 S':: 20 — 25 — Total Depth: 26' — 30 - 30- 35 - - 40 - 40— 45 - - 50 - 50- 55 - - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5273.73 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 44 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/22/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Topsoil Well completed with 6" diameter Sand, very silty, clayey, medium moist, medium brown i e t locking steel well protector Clay, sandy, moist, light brown grouted in place. 5 :2:- Claystone, moist/very moist, olive grey/ yellow brown Well Stickup: 2.65 grout 1/4" bentonite pellets 10 004 tir 00 less moist from 10' 10 ,;,,. iiiiiii !.:0 8-12 silica sand 15 2" sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush Sandstone, clayey, medium moist, yellow brown threaded 100 20 20 00 -00 00 Claystone, carbonaceous in places, moist, grey k 00 00 Ni -mit_mar 25 -007 Ii1FIN 30 30 OOP Fti r; Claystone/Shale, carbonaceous in places, medium brown grey/yellow moist, re / 35 Ste; 9 y y •.•• s y °e, 1 rc ,!Eg' s 40 40 r 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" <S it Shale, sandy, 43-45', slightly moist slot, flush threaded with 45 threaded end cap •' Total Depth: 48 feet 50 50- 55 - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5281 .91 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 45 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/22/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail own. Topsoil rout Comments g Well completed with 6" diameter Sand, clayey, moist, brown locking steel well protector Claystone, moist, yellow brown/grey grouted in place. 5 Sandstone, medium grained, weakly cemented, moist/wet, ty� �M1�Well Stickup: 3.23' yellow brown 30 1/4" bentonite pellets Q � 10 @ 10 8-12 silica sand Cla stone, moist, brown/grey 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" y yellow slot, flush threaded with 15 threaded end cap Total Depth: 18 feet 20 - 20 - 25 - _ 30 - 30— _ 35 - _ 40 - 40— _ 45 - 50 50— _ 55 - - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5279.88 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist y �:1 `) j Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 46 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments r Topsoil _ Clay, sandy, moist, brown 5 Sandstone, clayey, moist, grey Claystone, moist/very moist, grey _ 10 :" 10 — — NA 15 Total Depth: 18.0 feet _ 20 — 20 — 25 — _ 30 — 30- 35 — _ 40 — 40— _ 45 — 50 — 50- 55 — - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5272.21 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist �� r-: .r.q v1) Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 47 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments �.' Topsoil _ iASand, clayey, silty, moist medium brown , Clay, sandy, moist, medium brown 5 Claystone, moist, yellow brown — _, Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, moist, yellow brown 10 10 — Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown _ _ Total Depth: 12.0 feet _ 15 — = NA 20 20 - 25 — — 30 L 30- - 35 - - 40 40— _ 45 - - 50 - 50- 55 - - Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5282.43 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist U.1.9..5519 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 48 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments cynra or Topsoil — Clay, slightly sandy, moist/very moist, light to medium brown — 5 — Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown _ 10 I.'< 10 — Total Depth: 13.0 feet 15 — — NA 20 - 20 — 25 - _ 30 - 30- - 35 = 40 - 40— . 45 - - 50 - 50— _ 55 - _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5273.97 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S I. i51` tS9 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 49 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/23/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments ria Topsoil — Clay, to Clay sandy, moist/very moist, light to medium — �// brown 5 z2'' Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown 10 :>:' 10 — - Claystone/Sandstone Interbedded, gypsum noted, moist, — NA 15 - olive grey/yellow brown — Claystone as before _ 20 ::22 20 — 25 `2 _ Sandstone, clayey with thin intermittent lenses of — 30 claystone, medium moist, grey with some yellow brown 30— 35 40 __ 40— _ Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, — yellow brown/grey — 45 - Total Depth: 48' _ 50 50— 55 _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5285.95 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist el 65171 tr.) ♦.�-. . "i 3_.wr- Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 50 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/24/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments Sandstone, slightly silty, fine to medium grained,moist, Well completed with 4" yellow brown diameterlocking steel well protector grouted in place. 5 Well Stickup: grout Claystone, moist, yellow brown 10 :?::: 10 Sandstone, silty, fine grained, medium moist, yellow 15 brown Claystone as before 1/4" bentonite pellets 20 20 Sandstone, very silty, medium moist, yellow brown 8-12 silica sand 25 b 30 30 2" sch. 40 PVC pipe, flush 0 very cemented from 31-32' threaded Claystone as before —_ Sandstone, very silty, clayey, with thin - 35 intermittent lenses of claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown - p 40 40— 45 50 Sandstone, medium grained, moist, red brown 50-53' 50 2" sch. 40 PVC screen, .020" slot, flush threaded with flush Sandstone, very silty and clayey, as before except moist threaded cap 55 ... Claystone, moist, olive grey/yellow brown — !...� Total Depth: 58 feet — Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5223.36 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S1:1;17;1171 Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 51 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/24/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments y,. Topsoil _ a Clay, moist, brown — Claystone, medium moist, olive grey — 5 — 10 ;::2' 10 — 15 :::: — NA 20 >?? 20 — -- Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, _ 25 =- olive grey/yellow brown — Claystone as before except more moist _ 30 30— 35 - 40 Sandstone, very silty, well cemented, slightly to 40— medium moist, yellow brown 45 - less cemented at 48', light brown to buff _ 50 50— Sandstone, very silty and clayey, as before except medium moist —_ 55 -- Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium moist, — = olive/yellow brown .... Claystone, medium moist, olive grey/yellow brown _ Total Depth: 58 feet Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5255.57 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist elreiziT Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 52 Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Graphic. Date: 5/24/90 Log Lithology Well Construction Detail Comments yyj Topsoil Clay, sandy, silty, moist, brown 5 - 10 :: > Claystone, gypsum noted, moist, yellow brown/olive 10 — grey, becoming more grey with depth _ 15 :: — NA 20 20 — less moist with depth from 23-42' _ 25 — 30 30- 35 40 ::::': 40— _ moist at 42' 45 - Sandstone, very clayey, and silty, medium moist to moist, — olive grey _ 50 :::: Claystone, slightly sandy, moist to medium moist, olive 50— grey — 55 Total Depth: 57.5 feet Drilling Method: Air Rotary/Drag Bit Figure Hole Diameter 3.75" Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Georex Test Boring Elevation: 5255.92 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist APPENDIX B Soils Testing Analytical Results Chen@Northern,Inc. Gansu eng Engineers and Scientists 96 South Zun&reef. Denver Colorado 89223 303 744-7'05 303 744-0210 Facemile April 9, 1990 Mr. Kip White Kip R. White Consulting Environmental Scientist 8745 West 14th Avenue, Suite 216 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Subject: Laboratory Testing Job No. 1 427 90 near Mr. White: As requested, we have completed the laboratory testing of several soil samples which were submitted by you to our Denver laboratory on March 12, 1990. The testing included moisture content and dry density determinations, gradation analysing, Attesberg limits tests, specific gravity testing, standard compaction tests and fixed-wall permeability tests. All tests were perforIleCl in general accordance with ASTM procedures with the exception of the permeability tests which were run in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Manual No. EM 1110-2-1906) test methods. The results of the tests are presented on Tables I and II and Figures 1 through 8, enclosed. If you have any questions regarding this submittal or if we can be of further assistance, please feel flee to call. Sincerely, CHEN-NOMBERN/,, INC. sail* )( U Sally R. Miller, A.E.T. Soils Laboratory Supervisor SKM/jb Enclosures Rev. By: NFL A memoer :net rim)group o'mmparnes CSEN-NCETHERN, INC. TABLE II, Revised Smeary of laboratory Permeability Test Results May 10, 1990 Job No. 1 427 90 Initial Initial Initial Final Final Coefficient of Moisture Dry Density, Compaction, Moisture Dry Density, Permeability Sample Content. % pcf % Content, % pcf of cm/sec 7a @ 1'-5' 17.3 103.4 94.9 22.2 103.7 1 x 10 -8 3 @ 0-5' 20.0 99.1 95.3 24.7 96.8 2 x 10-8 * Samples were tested in a fixed-wall permeameter using a falling head. The hydraulic gradient was equal to approximately 50 for sample 7a and 44 for sample 8. Chen @Northern,Inc. _ . i . { C C 0:1 cO O O 4-, W S r0 4-,L- 0_ ar _ CT Z~ u - v 0_ I- OX j 3 u O r--- U .--, C r--' C C tt1 O, N = a T rD >` _ >- rO > . d) as S I Ii")O >- O I'D >-- ._ >- dJ 0 -O ill — — ro in v U U — U d) — >- U >- U >-- U >. u) rO r,,1 • -0 -0 C -0 C -0 C CO 7 C C .-.+ C r0 4-, C rO 4-+ C r0 m in Z rD rr) rJ d) di r0 Cl.) rD rD d) • ,_ ch LL_ ix) J L. VI J Li n J i L > L _C ... I a p d ~1 O � LL_ r-- r\ U> 2 N , c,,,En 0 I O wZS zV)�,—, N Daw n � c.)m U 1 D j r V) r_ I.1 V><.-. M Li-) O U1 N 111 Z L!1 N S M N N C V) m W cc w O,_ QD ON � O M ON M 7 a K r--- M Lr1 M Lrl M S � < C C >' . • j i I - r ..- ." � O W ~OO /~/ w(/Z�..„0 t\ .D c0 O N N \-D ON M CO `i W Q O•y) Ll1 O", ,...0 VD O L(1 I"-- Q` r--- Crs OQ O adz Z e— Q ._..� J p �- [f ZZ M S CT N O CO L11 S n ₹ l O N S N M S N M } V./ O o ! I t 1 , i �,.= >- g 1 C7 O O O O O O M O O O M 0 L.7 M r . V) _ •.D c0 O CO Ll1 DL.t L(\ c, co I I I 1 I apW� O O O O N Z -. t -. . er IZ�r. S in ,.D N ••••0S O, .— c0 !` - O O m K .— CO ON \-O Q` O S L11 U , i I .�`. Z O S LA u1O L!1 LC1 Lt1 O L!1 U1 O w w S U< p.. O WO J a c., z -- N S u-N •.D r O c0 O m 1 - r - et 4 r....�`� �.), ...:... .',...1.i7).. c. .. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. 7 HR. HO 95 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 I.8 '4 100 ��- I , 0 90 10 60 F i zo i I 0 , 30 — _ t 0 z I 402so a a I -10- 50ct a _ l 1 t z w I 60 U m ( I .. 1 1 a 30 - I I 70 '.. I I I 20 ♦_ t 8° '., 1 I I 10 I 90 0 , 1 1 11Ln `� 1 I I e , _ .L1 1_ 1 1 t 1 . It 1 1 11.tr1 I 100 .001 .002 -005 009 019 _037 .074 119 1 .297 I .590 1.19 2.38 0 76 9.52 19.1 38.1. ]6.2 127 200 42 2 0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM ICOARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 0 % SAND 43 % SILT AND CLAY 57 % % % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF Sandy S i I t'` FROM Boring 1 at depth 44 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR 7 HR 1 45 MIN.15 MIN 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '10'30 '16 '8 '< ill ,____.-----.. . ` 90 I , 10 1 I 80 I 4 T 20 L L 30 0 "" -••• • 1 I D i,.• 40 Z 03 m — r I a L a. r 522 �� r 5011._I Z Z cc 40 I 60¢ w 1 - w a 1 a 30 1 t 70 20 I , I W 1 10 ' 90 1 , 111 . t , . t_.1%.1 _ , e. 'I ... H . . • I nit 1 . 1 , ..-i.. 3 100 001 .002 .005 .009 .019 037 .074 .149 .297 42590 1.19 038 476 9.52 19.1 38.1 76.2 12 200 152 IDIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS I SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM 'COARSE FINE i COARSE GRAVEL 0 % SAND 4 % SILT AND CLAY 96 % LIQUID LIMIT 76 % PLASTICITY INDEX 53 % SAMPLE OF Fat Clay FROM Boring 2 at depth 51 1 427 90 ChendiNorthern.Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 1 CZ r:!-1 rah HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HA 7 HR 1 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 I•8 '4 00 , 0 90 10 80 I I 20 70 � 130 1 tu Z '60 ; 1 1 40Z N I H `A ( w a 50¢ H Z Z w ¢ � 1 �LI ¢ 1 w u n 30 I I 70 i I 20 1 t, 80 1 I 10 I . 90 I 0 1 1 [ 11 l L1 11 t1 � i u 1 + 11 . , „§ i �176,2'11217 L� l 100 001 002 ,00511.009 .019 ,037 .074 .1491 .297 Iz590 119 22038 476 ' 952 19.1 381.1 , 1fi.2 121522 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE IMEDIUM 1COARSE FINE ICOBBLES COARSE GRAVEL 1 0 °h SAND 29 % SILT AND CLAY 61 % % % LIQUID LIMIT 39 PLASTICITY INDEX 25 SAMPLE OF Sandy lean Clay FROM Boring 4 at depth 51 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR 7 HR 1 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 •16 j 8 '0 4" ?:" 1'h" 3" 5"8` ' 100 V i i 90 I 1 10 r• . 8 I 0 xe I - I - i o 1 30 - f I Z BO 4, 1 0 w Z Q I I 1 < W Yr - f'�'J _ f SOa Z I 2 IL Iv 1 t Wtt a w u 30 1 1 1 70 20 1 1 eB 1 1 10 I : 1 90 i1 11I1 t , 111nu 1 11n F- i 1t 111s II lt1 '14n . ' 100 001 .002 005 .009 .019 037 .074 .149 .297 1 590 1.19 I2.38 476 9.52 19.1 38.1 762 127 200 42 2.0 152 i DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND OR CLAY TO SILT FINE 1MEDIUM 1COARSE FINE IYE COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF FROM 1 427 90 CheneNortherninc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 2 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. ]HR. I 100 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN. 1MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 1(8 '4 � �. ,..�.+ I 0 I 90 /1'1 i 0 . 80 i 1 20 i 1 1 o ` 30 O 260 ! t km WZ h a a I 1 1 n 50 1 50 c 4- Z I 4 z w w� . 4 4- 1 80 a n I w a 30 1 1 ]0 i 1 20 I 1` Bp L 1 0 I 90 1 l 1 , u, 1 ! Till'',1,.e 1 1 1 p . , 1 311 L1�, , 1,4, 1 .001 .002 .00511.009 .019 3.03] 0]d t49 29] '590 1.19 230 d]6 9.52 19.1 36.1 . ]6.212] 2v0� 42 2.0 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT COBBLESFINE I MEDIUM ICOARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 0 % SAND 32 % SILT AND CLAY 68 % % % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF Lean clay With Sand's FROM Boring 4 at depth 101 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. ]HR 1 45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 i'8 '4 k" a•' 1%" 3" 5"8" 100 --r 1 a 1 I m i ! to t BO I f 20 I 1 ]0 1 I N rillIx ` I 412 Z a i I F 50 1 50¢ ti w t T a40 I 1 WO n I I , ¢ .- I w 30 u 1 ! j 20 20 I ! ' Bp I 10 1 90 i 1 .001 O02 1 1.0051 1.009 019 _03] , 1.A 11 ,074 .149 1 `.29] 1 1590 1131.19 12.381 14•63 1 952 19 1 n k 1 38.1• lifts]612] 200 42 20 152 IDIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 MEDIUM ICOARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL O % SAND O % SILT AND CLAY 1 OO % LIQUID LIMIT 59 % PLASTICITY INDEX 40 % SAMPLE OF Fat clay FROM Boring 4 at depth 151 1 427 90 CheneNorthern.Ine GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 el .7: HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.5.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. 7 HR. 45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN. 1 MIN '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 1I'8 '4 00 __."-- 1 0 T 90 � la 0 80 I 20 I 1 1 70 .. . 30 1 0 z 60 II r, 40 z a 1 t Zt r 50 1 50 Iii_ Z 1 a- 2 3 0 00 1 80° 1 1 2 a I I i 30 I I 70 1 '.\ I 1 20 1 I BO t I 1 to 90 I 4 0 . . . I o , , , ,. 1 nit _ 1 1 u 1 2 t 1 o i .1 ,is 4 e 1 a 1 t n I 213.r°.001 .002 1.005, ,.009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 590 1.19 22 38 4 76 9.52 19.1 38.1 . 76.2 12152 42 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS I SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT COBBLESFINE I MEDIUM [COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 0 % SAND 48 % SILT AND CLAY 52 % % % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF Sandy s It" FROM Boring 5 at depth 151 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 20 HR 7 HR. 45 MINIS MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 •40'30 •16 1,8 '4 100 1 1 r T ---. I d 90 1 10 1 I T 1 7---- } b ' 20 ]0 r 1 30 t 1 z ok I bZ a i 1 zz- 5. H 34 ' 1 i 5D� Wb 1 I b¢ a I 1 w ' a 30 L / 70 1 20 1 I 80 F 1 10 CO 1 L. 4- 01 I 1 'u . i 1 1. 9u � 1 1 1 1 , 1 .d • 1 1 1 . 1.3.. 001 .CO2 .005 .009 .019 .037 .II 111 , , 074 .149 1 .297 .590 1.19 12.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 76.2 127 200 42 20 152 IDIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT FINE [SANDMEDIUM !COARSE FINE GRAVEL[ COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 3 % SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 72 % LIQUID LIMIT 3 q° PLASTICITY INDEX 13 % SAMPLE OF Lean Clay With sand FROM Boring 6 at depth 51 1 427 90 Chen@Northern,Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 G'.1 r 7 s•'�q I. �.. ... HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. 7 HR. '10 45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 I'6 'e 100 Y T I 0 r 90 - 10 I , r 80 - I , 0 , 30 1 0 I w z 60 1 40 z a a 50 - I f 50M Z _ I 1 z w 1 80U U 40 — I I cc LU d r - n 30 I I 70 1 . 1 1 20 I 60 r - I 10 ; 3D _ / 1 1111 1 1 1A nn , t11 . .11 1 1 , . 1111. 4 , 111J.,. 1 ,00 001 .002 -005 .009 .019 03] .074 .149 .29] ' .590 1.19 2.36 4 76 9.52 19.1 36.1 . 76 2 12152 42 2 0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM !COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL O % SAND 4 % SILT AND CLAY 96 % % a" LIQUID LIMIT 53 PLASTICITY INDEX 35 SAMPLE OF Fat Clay FROM Boring 6 at depth 30' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS l 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 j 6 '4 M'• YP 1'h" 3" 5'•6" b 100 1 i r - 90 I 10 1 l 80 1 1 '" 20 I 70 30 IL F r i 0 Z ca. b4 z 50'—' c 50� Ili 40 1 1 60U cc +- 1 IL n , l - a 30 ' I _ 70 I 20 1 1 i b 1_ 0 1 90 i 1 , 11 r1 4 , , . , n.1 — . l ,_ 1111 1• 1 ! Anna 4 I I 1 1. 1.1 I 100 CO1 .002 .005 009 .019 .03] 0]4 .149 .297 1590 1.19 12.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 ]62 127 200 42 2.0 152 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 MEDIUM !COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF FROM 1 427 90 CheneNorthernine GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 el `!CA rh HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 TIME READINGS US.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. l HR. 5"6" 8" 45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 `40'30 '16 11.8 4 I 0 W , 0 90 ! 20 80 I - 1 I I 30 0 1 r t w r bZ 2 60 1 w It < - I I 50 c ,- 50 - t w Z I t 80 as — I II LU O. I TO 30 1 1 I 20 1 - - t 1 90 o _ I I J J 1 , . L ,. I I I , . I !Ili . 1 , , ,I I, 001 .002 t 1005 A09 .019 ,037 .074 .149 1 .297 I 590 jj11.19 42 22038 476 9.52 19.1 ,38.1 . 762 12152 100 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS j CLAY TO SILT I FINE I SAND MEDIUM 'COARSE` FINE GRAVEL1 COARSE !COBBLES GRAVEL O % SAND 79 % SILT AND CLAY 21 °A % %LIQUID LIMIT 39 PLASTICITY INDEX 22 SAMPLE OF Sandy lean clay FROM Boring 7a at depth 0-51 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I TIME READINGS U S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HR 7 HR. CI 45 MIN.is MIN 60 MIN. 19 MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '5 '40"30 '16 11'8 _d "6" q 100 - / V �� 0 90 l• I I80 I zo r ' I I L _ ,-400 1 I G aW D z 2 c' 1 1 r y I W at I - 50w 40 W 0 I I 800 cc 94 et) I 1 u I 30 I 70 - _ ; I 8°20 t Y _ 1 q 0 — i I 1 , 1 , I I •in.. . 1I, I , 1 1 . .1,4 1 , 1 . ,.1.. . 100 00t .002 1 1 1 1 , IO05 .009 019 .037 .074 .149 .297 42590 1.19 038 476 9.52 19.1 38.1 762 121522 / IDIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1 CLAY TO SILT I FINE 1 SAND MEDIUM 'COARSE' FINE GRAVELI COARSE 'COBBLES GRAVEL 0 % SAND 7 % SILT AND CLAY 93 % LIQUID LIMIT 43 Y° PLASTICITY INDEX 25 % SAMPLE OF Lean clay FROM Boring 8 at depth 1-51 1 427 90 Chen ONorthern.Inc GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6 130 125 120 - ZERO AIR VOID CURVES SPECIFIC 2.80 GRAVITY - 115 ' SPECIFIC - 2.70 GRAVITY L.L. O 110 SPECIFIC = 2.60 O_ GRAVITY I } 05UJ 1 Z LU \ D . \ )- CC 100 I - al _ _ . — \ ' 95 . . , . _ 90 - - I - i .: ,-: . , i 85 _ . _ . . _ - _ _ 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT :^1.":°S LOCATION : MOISTURE-DENSITY HOLE NO. : 7a DEPTH : 0-5 ' SAMPLE NO. : RELATIONSHIPS SOIL DESCRIPTION : Sandy lean clay Chen@Northern.Inc MAX. DRY DENSITY : 108.9 PCF OPT. MOIST. CONTENT : 17.2 % PROCEDURE : ASTM D698-78, Meth. "A" LIQUID LIMIT : 39 PLASTICITY INDEX : 22 JOB NO. : 1 427 90 FIG. NO. GRAVEL : 0 % SAND : 31 % SILT AND CLAY (-200) : 79 % DATE : March 14, 1990 7 130 125 • 120 ' ' .\\k\\A ZERO AIR VOID CURVET SPECIFIC o 2,80 115 GRAVITY SPECIFIC = 2.70 2.60 GRAVITY LL U 110 SPECIFIC a n. GRAVITY I I- ~ 105 V) 1 W 0 )_Q 100 .\ 95 90 . 85 - ,\ 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT C1,1,519 LOCATION : MOISTURE-DENSITY HOLE NO. : 8 DEPTH : 1-5 ' SAMPLE NO. : RELATIONSHIPS SOIL DESCRIPTION : Lean clay Chen@Northern.Inc MAX. DRY DENSITY ' 104.0 PCF OPT. MOIST. CONTENT : 20.1 % PROCEDURE : ASTM D698-78, Meth. "A" LIQUID LIMB : 43 PLASTICITY INDEX : 25 JOB NO. : 1 427 90 FIG. NO. GRAVEL : 0 % SAND : 7 % SILT AND CLAY (-200) : 93 % DATE : Ma rch 1 5, 1990 8 S Soils and seoa NENDALL COURT M Materials ARVADA,ENDALL CO 80002 13031431-2335 CConsultants, Inc. Kip White, Environmental Scientist . June 13 , 1990 8745 W. 15th Avenue , Suite 216 project No. 2155-01 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attention : Mr . Kip White Subject: Proposed ERD Landfill Liner Material Testing Dear Sir: Attached are the accumulated laboratory test data , as request- ed . The tests included Proctor analysis , Atterberg limits, and remolded triax permeability . If we may be of further service in evaluating these data, please contact us at your convenience . SOILS & MATERIALS CONSULTANTS, INC . Reviewed by : ---rc �� Cer, Raymond A. Costin Richard W. Weber, P.E . Senior Technical Principal Geotechnical Associate Engineer RAC/kc kkp W N' Copies: 3 �\(,, 4,STEgF•fs e � .. 9 a * 'p 13936w`• * 0 • cP�•.,s, ,c+•Q 9J`C.TONAL t-,--4. N A.%OFCotp _ S.1+-`tom al ti:y� ......: 140 130 , F+ 0 0 w 120 o 0 . o , a w a 110 co 0 . z 0 0 w r 100 .--P " ; wr..--- 0 r x 0 90 80 - 11 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 99 . 0 pcf OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 24. 5% SAMPLE DESCRIPTION : Claystone, High plasticity , grey (CH) LOCATION : Proposed ERD Landfill CHECK POINTS : CLASSIFICATION TESTING : Sieve Analysis (% passing) : #4- ;#10- ;#40- 100 ;#200- 99 Atterberg Limits :1C.\\ Liquid Limit - 65 ; Plasticity Index - 44Soils and ASTM D- 698(A) PROCTOR N0. 1 i«rPvr 1 Materials � Consultants, Inc. PROCTOR TEST RESULTS Project No. 2155-01 Figure 1 CI r t 51.1 PERMEABILITY RESULTS Project Name: Proposed ERD Landfill Date: June 11 , 1990 Sample No. : 1 TEsT" PST' I Sample Description: Claystone, high plasticity , grey (CH) Sample Condition: Remolded Maximum Proctor Density (Standard) - 99.0 pef Optimum Moisture Content - 24 .5% Natural Moisture, Content-19 . 2% Liquid Limit - 65 Plasticity Index - 44 - #200 Content - 99% Remolded Dry Density - 94 .6 pef Remolded Moisture Content - 24 .6% Compaction ( Based on Proctor) - 95.6% Permeability: K = 2.425 X 10-g em/sec . Hydraulic Gradient = 26 . 3 cm/cm (Feet of Head - 11 . 1 ) (.1-.\0 Soils and Mattrisls Consultants, Inc. PERMEABILITY RESULTS Project No. 2155-01 Table 1 APPENDIX C In Situ Permeability Test Results Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): NA Boring Number: 2 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1667 Date Tested: 2/23/90 Test Section Length (ctr of packer) (ft): 35 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 3.5 Test Section Desc.: interbedded CLS/SCS Depth to center of packer (ft): 15 k = (Q / 2aLH) InL/r ; La r, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 Q gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 11:16:00 3101.10 35 is 11:17:00 3101.10 31 0.000 0.000 11:18:00 3101.15 31 0.050 0.007 11:19:00 3101.40 31 0.250 0.033 11:22:00 3104.50 30 1.033 0.138 11:24:00 3107.20 30 1.350 0.180 11:26:00 3109.90 30 1.350 0.180 11:28:00 3112.60 30 1.350 0.180 11:30:00 3115.20 35 1.300 0.174 11:36:00 3122.90 35 1.283 0.172 11:45:00 3132.40 35 1.056 0.141 11:46:00 3132.90 35 0.500 0.067 11:47:00 3133.45 35 0.550 0.074 11:48:00 3134.05 35 0.600 0.080 11:49:00 3134.60 37 0.550 0.074 11:50:00 3135.15 38 0.550 0.074 11:52:00 3136.15 38 0.500 0.067 11:54:00 3137.15 38 0.500 0.067 11:56:00 3138.05 40 0.450 0.060 11:58:00 3138.90 40 0.425 0.057 12:00:00 3139.85 39 0.475 0.064 12:02:00 3140.80 39 0.475 0.064 12:04:00 3141.30 39 0.250 0.033 12:05:00 3141.60 39 0.300 0.040 12:06:00 3141.95 26 0.350 0.047 12:07:00 3142.25 25 0.300 0.040 12:08:00 3142.55 25 0.300 0.040 35.5 Average: 0.619 0.083 Calculations: Range 1 Range 2 Range R34C3:R44C5 R45C3:R49C5 No. of readings used 11 5 Q (gpm) 0.507 0.300 Q (cu, ft/min) 0.068 0.040 Average Pressure 37.64 30.80 H 122.94 107.15 k =: ft/min 0.00001340 0.00000910 ft/yr 7.04 4.78 cm/sec 6.8E-06 4.6E-06 :1: �„ r) el , -, _ Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): NA Boring Number: 8 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1667 Date Tested: 2/27/90 Test Section Length (ctr of packer) (ft): 45 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 3 Test Section Desc.: interbedded CLS 15-60' Depth to center of packer (ft): 15 k = (Q / 2nLH) InL/r ; Lar, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 Q gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi) Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 12:00:00 3206.05 20 _ 12:01:00 3206.05 20 0.000 0.000 12:03:00 3206.05 20 0.000 0.000 12:04:00 3206.05 20 0.000 0.000 12:05:00 3206.05 25 0.000 0.000 12:06:00 3206.05 25 0.000 0.000 12:07:00 3206.05 30 0.000 0.000 12:08:00 3206.05 30 0.000 0.000 12:09:00 3206.05 30 0.000 0.000 12:10:00 3206.05 40 0.000 0.000 12:15:00 3206.05 40 0.000 0.000 Average: 0.000 0.000 Calculations: Range 1 Range R24C3:R33C5 No. of readings used 10 a (gpm) 0.000 Q (cu. ft/min) 0.000 Average Pressure 28.00 H 105.18 k =: ft/min less than 2E-7 ft/yr less than 0.103 a1 rim°-'4 ?0, �/� } cm/sec less than 1E-7 Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): NA Boring Number: 8 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1667 Date Tested: 2/27/90 Test Section Length (ctr of packer) (ft): 27 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 2 Test Section Desc.: interbedded CLS 33-60' Depth to center of packer (ft): 33 k = (Q / 2 it L H) In L/r ; L x r, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 Q gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi) Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 14:54:00 3195.15 18 14:56:00 3195.15 18 0.000 0.000 14:57:00 3195.15 20 0.000 0.000 14:58:00 3195.15 25 0.000 0.000 14:59:00 3195.15 27 0.000 0.000 15:00:00 3195.15 30 0.000 0.000 15:01:00 3195.15 30 0.000 0.000 15:02:00 3195.15 30 0.000 0.000 15:03:00 3195.15 35 0.000 0.000 15:04:00 3195.15 35 0.000 0.000 15:05:00 3195.15 35 0.000 0.000 - 15:06:00 3195.15 37 0.000 0.000 15:07:00 3195.15 37 0.000 0.000 15:08:00 3195.15 37 0.000 0.000 15:12:00 3195.15 40 0.000 0.000 15:17:00 3195.15 40 0.000 0.000 Average: 0.000 0.000 Calculations: Range 1 Range R24C3:R38C5 No of readings used 15 Q (gpm) 0.000 Q (cu. ft/min) 0.000 Average Pressure 31.73 H 121.80 k =: ft/min less than 2E-7 ft/yr less than 0.103 el f.r'.�� n �,2 cm/sec less than 1E-7 s.,_. Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): NA Boring Number: 9 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1667 Date Tested: 4/4/90 Test Section Length (ctr of packer) (ft): 10 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 3 Description of Test Section: 10-20' CLS Depth to center of packer (ft): 10 k = (Q / 2 n L H) In Ur ; L a r, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 a gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi) Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 11:50:00 3348.78 11:53:00 3348.78 20 0.000 0.000 11:55:00 3348.78 20 0.000 0.000 12:00:00 3348.78 20 0.000 0.000 12:05:00 3348.78 20 0.000 0.000 12:09:00 3348.90 30 _ :;872.100 14&.74@'. 12:11:00 3349.05 30 0.075 0.010 12:13:00 3349.20 30 0.075 0.010 12:15:00 3349.38 30 0.090 0.012 12:17:00 3349.56 30 0.090 0.012 12:19:00 3349.75 30 0.095 0.013 12:21:00 3349.96 30 0.105 0.014 12:25:00 3350.50 30 0.135 0.018 Average: 31 .064 4.153 Calculations: Range 1 Range 2* Range 3* *fractured by excess head Range R24C3:R27C4 R31C3:R32C4 R33C3:R37C4 No. of readings used 4 2 5 Q (gpm) 0.000 0.075 0.103 Q (cu. 1t/min) 0.000 0.010 0.014 Average Pressure 20.00 30.00 30.00 H 64.20 87.30 87.30 k =: n-g F- q., ft/min less than 2E-7 0.0000074839 0.0000102779 i.,) f t/y r less than .103 3.93 5.40 cm/sec less than 1E-7 3.8E-06 5.2E-06 Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): 27.167 Boring Number: 14 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1563 Date Tested: 4/17/90 Test Section Length (ctr of packer) (ft): 10 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 4 Test Section Desc.: interbedded CLS/SMS Depth to center of packer (ft): 30 k = (Q / 2 n L H) In L/r ; L a r, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 Q gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi) Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 12:56:30 846.70 10 12:57:00 846.75 10 0.100 0.013 12:57:30 846.75 10 0.000 0.000 12:58:00 846.75 10 0.000 0.000 12:58:30 846.76 10 0.020 0.003 12:59:00 846.76 10 0.000 0.000 13:00:00 847.20 15 #©IYj0! O1\1/0i! 13:00:30 847.25 15 0.100 0.013 13:01:00 847.40 15 0.300 0.040 13:01:30 847.60 15 0.400 0.053 13:02:00 847.75 15 0.300 0.040 13:02:30 847.98 15 0.460 0.061 13:06:00 848.50 16 fl.149 '. 0.020'. 13:07:00 848.75 16 0.250 0.033 13:08:00 848.90 16 0.150 0.020 13:09:00 849.20 16 0.300 0.040 13:10:00 849.45 18 0.250 0.033 13:11:00 849.60 18 0.150 0.020 13:12:00 849.86 18 0.260 0.035 13:13:00 850.15 22 0.290 0.039 Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Calculations: Range 1 Range 2 Range 3 Range R24C3:R28C5 R32C3:R35C5 R37C3:R43C5 No of readings used 5 4 7 a (gpm) 0.024 0.365 0.236 Q (cu. ft/min) 0.003 0.049 0.032 Average Pressure 10.00 15.00 17.71 H 54.27 65.82 72.09 k =: ft/min 0.00000391 0.00004907 0.000028933 ft/yr 2.06 25.79 15.21 ei F'„� cm/sec 2.0E-06 2.5E-OS 1.5E-05 �;'� .N, �I ,: Packer Permeability Test Analysis Project Name/No. ERD Landfill/8910-04 Water Level (ft from G.S.): NA Boring Number: 17 Boring Radius (ft): 0.1667 Date Tested: Test Section Length (ctr of pack 33 Logged By: Kip White Height of Water Swivel (ft): 4 Test Section Desc.: interbedded CLS/SCS Depth to center of packer (ft): 20 k = (Cr / 2 a L H) In Ur ; L 2 r, where: k = permeability (ft/min), (ft/yr), (cm/sec) Q = constant rate of flow into hole (recorded as gpm and converted to cubic feet/min) L = length of the portion of the hole tested (ft) H = differential head of water = distance from the water swivel to the center of length tested (or water table if L is below water table) plus the applied pressure in feet of water (1 psi = 2.31 feet of water) r = radius of the hole (ft) conversion factors: k1 ft/min to ft/yr 525600 k2 ft/min to cm/sec 0.508 Q gpm to cu ft/min 0.13369 time (min : sec) flow meter reading pressure (psi) Q (gpm) Q (cu ft/min) 15:04:00 6920.30 15:05:00 6920.30 10 0.000 0.000 15:06:00 6920.30 10 0.000 0.000 15:07:00 6920.30 10 0.000 0.000 15:08:00 6920.30 10 0.000 0.000 15:09:00 6920.31 20 0.010 0.001 15:10:00 6920.32 20 0.010 0.001 15:11:00 6920.33 20 0.010 0.001 15:12:00 6920.34 20 0.010 0.001 15:13:00 6920.35 20 0.010 0.001 15:14:00 6920.35 20 0.000 0.000 15:15:00 6920.35 20 0.000 0.000 15:16:00 6920.35 20 0.000 0.000 15:17:00 6920.35 25 0.000 0.000 15:18:00 6920.35 35 0.000 0.000 15:19:00 6920.35 35 0.000 0.000 15:20:00 6930.00 35 9.650 1.290 formation frac- 15:21:00 6940.28 34 10.280 1.374 tured (constant 15:22:00 6955.70 34 15.420 2.061 pressure adjust- _ ment required) 15:24:00 6972.21 10 _ 290.509 38.838 15:25:00 6972.21 /0 0.000 0.000 15:26:00 6971.85 10 -0.360 -0.048 back pressure 15:27:00 6971.85 10 0.000 0.000 in formation due 15:28:00 6971.85 10 0.000 0.000 to closure of 15:29:00 6973.70 20 1.850 0.247 fractures 15:30:00 6975.60 20 1.900 0.254 15:31:00 6978.90 25 3.300 0.441 15:32:00 6979.65 20 0.750 0.100 15:33:00 6981.20 20 1.550 0.207 15:34:00 6982.00 20 0.800 0.107 15:35:00 6982.85 20 0.850 0.114 15:36:00 6984.10 20 1.250 0.167 Average: 10.897 1 .457 Calculations: Range 1 Range 2 Range 3 Range R24C3:R27C4 R33C3:R36C4 R51C3:R55C5 No. of readings used 4 4 5 Q (gpm) 0.000 0.000 1.040 Q (cu. ft/min) 0.000 0.000 0.139 Average Pressure 10.00 21.25 20.00 H 63.60 89.59 86.70 k ft/min less than 2E-7 less than 2E-7 0.000040899 It/yr less than 0.103 less than 0.103 21.50 el ki!,—1t 1 cm/sec less than 1E-7 less than 1E-7 2.1E-05 9 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 1 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 39.20 Date Tested: 5/10/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.2915 Description of Test Section: SMS Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 9.30 Length of casing above ground: 2.28 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 9.30 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 41 .48 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 10 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) where: L(e)/R(w) 31 .90394511 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find A,B R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from centerline and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) 2.6 Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) 0.35 C Lw = H) time (sec) Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0 1.27 Y(0) 1.275311881 _ 0.198 1.27 t(sec.) 540 0.396 1.26 Y(t) 0.5 0.594 1.21 Calculations: 0.798 1.22 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 2.446341804 0.996 1.22 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 1.2 1.18 1.398 1.18 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) = 1.6E-06 1.596 1.17 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) _ 1.6 1.12 1.998 1.07 8 L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) = 4.8E-05 3 0.97 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) _ 3.996 0.86 4.998 0.77 6 0.72 6.996 0.63 7.998 0.53 9 0.50 9.996 0.47 10.998 0.41 12 0.39 12.996 0.36 13.998 0.35 15 0.34 15.996 0.32 16.998 0.31 18 0.300 18.996 0.300 19.998 0.290 25.002 0.260 30 0.250 34.998 0.230 40.002 0.220 45 0.220 49.998 0.210 55.002 0.210 60 0.200 64.998 0.200 70.002 0.190 75 0.190 79.998 0.180 84.996 0.180 90 0.170 109.998 0.160 150 0.140 -- --- 180 0.120 210 0.110 240 0.100 270 0.080 300 0.070 e 1 ! `r'? ?.' Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW4 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 28.39 Date Tested: May-90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.08333 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.16667 Description of Test Section: claystone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 16.61 Length of casing above ground: 2.40 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 16.61 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 30.79 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 16.61 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 99.6580068 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cot and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 4.4 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0000 45.00 0.0000 16.61 Y(0) 16.54324829 9930.0000 42.48 9930.0000 14.09 t(sec.) 958500 15975.0000 41.38 15975.0000 12.99 Y(t) 12.99 Calculations: if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.531188404 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 1.9E-10 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 5.7E-09 - t^ i4,771T Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 4a Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 4.83 Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.08333 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.16667 Description of Test Section: CL/SC Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 10.00 Length of casing above ground: 2.50 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 10.17 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)], 7.33 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 10.17 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) ' L(e)/R(w) 59.9988 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cer and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 3 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0333 10.16 0.0333 2.83 Y(0) 2.225071481 0.0500 9.82 0.0500 2.49 t(sec.) 10.998 0.0666 9.19 0.0666 1.86 Y(t) 1.79 0.0833 9.02 0.0833 1.69 Calculations: 0.1000 9.11 0.1000 1.78 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 0.1166 9.22 0.1166 1.89 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.148971796 0.1333 9.24 0.1333 1.91 0.1500 9.19 0.1500 1.86 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) 0.1666 9.15 0.1666 1.82 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 2,2F:Q5 0.1833 9.12 0.1833 1.79 0.2000 9.12 0.2000 1.79 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ 0.2166 9.12 0.2166 1.79 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 6.6E-04 0.2333 9.12 0.2333 1.79 0.2500 9.11 0.2500 1.78 0.2666 9.11 0.2666 1.78 0.2833 9.10 0.2833 1.77 0.3000 9.10 0.3000 1.77 0.3166 9.10 0.3166 1.77 0.3333 9.09 0.3333 1.76 0.4167 9.09 0.4167 1.76 0.5000 9.08 0.5000 1.75 0.5833 9.08 0.5833 1.75 0.6667 9.08 0.6667 1.75 0.7500 9.07 0.7500 1.74 0.8333 9.07 0.8333 1.74 0.9167 9.07 0.9167 1.74 1.0000 9.07 1.0000 1.74 1.0833 9.06 1.0633 1.73 1.1667 9.06 1.1667 1.73 1.2500 9.06 1.2500 1.73 1.3333 9.06 1.3333 1.73 1.4166 9.06 1.4166 1.73 1.5000 9.06 1.5000 1.73 1.5833 9.05 1.5833 1.72 1.6667 9.05 1.6667 1.72 1.7500 9.05 1.7500 1.72 1.8333 9.05 1.8333 1.72 1.9167 9.05 1.9167 1.72 2.0000 9.05 2.0000 1.72 2.5000 9.04 2.5000 1.71 3.0000 9.03 3.0000 1.70 3.5000 9.03 3.5000 1.70 4.0000 9.02 4.0000 1.69 4.5000 9.02 4.5000 1.69 5.0000 9.01 5.0000 1.68 5.5000 9.00 5.5000 1.67 6.0000 9.00 6.0000 1.67 6.5000 9.00 6.5000 1.67 7.0000 8.99 7.0000 1.66 7.5000 8.99 7.5000 1.66 8.0000 8.98 8.0000 1.65 r 1 'FI%R.i r 8.5000 8.98 8.5000 1.65 . 9.0000 8.98 9.0000 1.65 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 5 Static Water Level (ft) [Y(s)]: 30.42 Date Tested: 5/10/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.1667 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 2.46 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 2.46 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 2.46 K = [R(c)"2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) where: L(e)/R(w) 14.75704859 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from centerline and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 1 .5 time ( sec) Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0 2.46 Y(0) 2.455153239 80 2.37 t 145 145 2.33 Y(t) 2.33 P90 2,29 Calculations: 615 2.25 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 780 2.23 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 1.959605294 1070 2.16 1575 2.12 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) 4110 1.77 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 1.0E-06 12990 0.86 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 3.0E-05 Na Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 7a Static Water Level (ft) [Y(s)]: 15.771 Date Tested: 3/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.2915 Description of Test Section: silty clay Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 1.375 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 1 .375 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 1 .375 K = [R(c)"2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) where: L(e)/R(w) 4.71 6981 1 32 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from centerline and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 0.8 time (sec) Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0 1.38 Y(0) 1.37642268 300 1.10 t 480 360 1.04 Y(t) 0.938 420 0.96 Calculations: 480 0.94 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 540 0.94 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 1.137989686 600 0.93 660 0.92 if L(w) c H, K (ft/sec) _ 720 0.91 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 7.3F-06 780 0.91 840 0.90 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ 900 0.90 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 7.0E-05 960 0.90 1080 0.87 1140 0.86 1200 0.85 1260 0.85 1320 0.85 1380 0.84 1440 0.84 1500 0.84 1620 0.84 1740 0.84 1860 0.84 1980 0.84 2100 0.83 F"I (J r.41.41 s� Hydrolic Conductivity Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 10 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 8.17 Area for Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 4.0000 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.1667 2.69 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 10 Length of casing above ground: 2.21 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w 18.83 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 10.38 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 18.83 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 59.9880024 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cer and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 3 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0000 9.86 0.0000 1.69 Y(0) 2.849575758 0.0033 11.23 0.0033 3.06 t(sec.) 510 0.0066 11.93 0.0066 3.76 Y(t) 2.48 0.0133 12.20 0.0133 4.03 Calculations: 0.0166 11.79 0.0166 3.62 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R( 0.0200 11.87 0.0200 3.70 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/Ri 3.537128534 0.0233 11.86 0.0233 3.69 0.0266 11.83 0.0266 3.66 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) 0.0300 11.84 0.0300 3.67 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) 3,3F-07 0.0333 11.83 0.0333 3.66 0.0500 11.81 0.0500 3.64 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec; 0.0666 11.76 0.0666 3.59 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec 1 0E-05 0.0833 11.75 0.0833 3.58 0.1000 11.73 0.1000 3.56 0.1166 11.72 0.1166 3.55 0.1333 11.71 0.1333 3.54 0.1500 11.70 0.1500 3.53 0.1666 11.68 0.1666 3.51 0.1833 11.67 0.1833 3.50 0.2000 11.66 0.2000 3.49 0.2133 11.65 0.2133 3.48 0.2333 11.64 0.2333 3.47 0.2500 11.63 0.2500 3.46 0.2666 11.62 0.2666 3.45 0.2833 11.61 0.2833 3.44 0.3000 11.60 0.3000 3.43 0.3166 11.59 0.3166 3.42 0.3333 11.58 0.3333 3.41 0.4167 11.53 0.4167 3.36 0.5000 11.49 0.5000 3.32 0.5833 11.46 0.5833 3.29 0.6667 11.42 0.6667 3.25 0.7500 11.39 0.7500 3.22 0.8333 11.36 0.8333 3.19 0.9167 11.33 0.9167 3.16 1.0000 11.31 1.0000 3.14 1.0833 11.28 1.0833 3.11 1.1667 11.26 1.1667 3.09 1.2500 11.24 1.2500 3.07 1.3333 11.21 1.3333 3.04 1.4166 11.20 1.4166 3.03 1.5000 11.18 1.5000 3.01 1.5833 11.16 1.5833 2.99 1.6667 11.15 1.6667 2.98 1.7500 11.13 1.7500 2.96 1.8333 11.12 1.8333 2.95 1.9167 11.10 1.9167 2.93 2.0000 11.09 2.0000 2.92 2.5000 11.01 2.5000 2.84 3.0000 10.95 3.0000 2.78 el !a`.,,(Z1 fi-S) 3.5000 10.90 3.5000 2.73 4.0000 10.86 4.0000 2.69 4.5000 10.82 4.5000 2.65 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 11 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 6.67 ref. WI only Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.16667 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 10 Length of casing above ground: 2.58 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 26.63 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 18.86 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 30 K = [R(c)A2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) 1 L(e)/R(w) 59.9988 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find A,B R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from ter and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) 3 Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) 0.5 C (L(w) = H) time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0033 8.85 0.0033 2.18 Y(0) 1.691491237 0.0066 8.69 0.0066 2.02 t(sec.) 210 0.0099 8.91 0.0099 2.24 Y(t) 0.29 0.0133 8.56 0.0133 1.89 Calculations: 0.0166 8.60 0.0166 1.93 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.426324777 0.0200 8.61 0.0200 1.94 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 0.0233 8.60 0.0233 1.93 0.0266 8.59 0.0266 1.92 if L(w) < H, K (t(sec) = 1.0E-0@ 0.0300 8.58 0.0300 1.91 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) _ 0.0333 8.56 0.0333 1.89 0.0500 8.53 0.0500 1.86 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ ,.0E-04 0.0666 8.49 0.0666 1.82 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) _ 0.0833 8.44 0.0833 1.77 0.1000 8.41 0.1000 1.74 0.1166 8.38 0.1166 1.71 0.1333 8.37 0.1333 1.70 0.1500 8.35 0.1500 1.68 0.1666 8.30 0.1666 1.63 0.1833 8.28 0.1833 1.61 0.2000 8.25 0.2000 1.58 0.2166 8.23 0.2166 1.56 0.2333 8.21 0.2333 1.54 0.2500 8.19 0.2500 1.52 0.2666 8.16 0.2666 1.49 0.2833 8.15 0.2833 1.48 0.3000 8.13 0.3000 1.46 0.3166 8.11 0.3166 1.44 0.3333 8.09 0.3333 1.42 0.4167 8.01 0.4167 1.34 0.5000 7.94 0.5000 1.27 0.5833 7.87 0.5833 1.20 0.6667 7.81 0.6667 1.14 0.7500 7.76 0.7500 1.09 0.8333 7.70 0.8333 1.03 0.9167 7.66 0.9167 0.99 1.0000 7.61 1.0000 0.94 1.0833 7.57 1.0833 0.90 1.1667 7.53 1.1667 0.86 1.2500 7.49 1.2500 0.82 1.3333 7.46 1.3333 0.79 1.4166 7.42 1.4166 0.75 1.5000 7.40 1.5000 0.73 1.5833 7.36 1.5833 0.69 1.6667 7.34 1.6667 0.67 1.7500 7.31 1.7500 0.64 1.8333 7.29 1.8333 0.62 1.9167 7.26 1.9167 0.59 2.0000 7.24 2.0000 0.57 2.5000 7.12 2.5000 0.45 . 3.0000 7.03 3.0000 0.36 r I r-w C"1 t: a.. -. .t:.:..,.'....1 3.5000 6.96 3.5000 0.29 4.0000 6.91 4.0000 0.24 4.5000 6.87 4.5000 0.20 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 13 Static Water Level (ft) [Y(s)]: 30.21 Date Tested: 5/12/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.15625 Description of Test Section: SMS Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 1 .79 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 1 .79 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 5 K = [R(c)"2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) where: L(e)/R(w) 11 .456 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find A,B R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from centerline and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) 1 .9 Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) 0.25 C (L(w) = H) time (min : sec) Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0 0.60 Y(0) 0.598333333 30 0.57 t 60 60 0.55 Y(t) 0.55 90 0.54 Calculations: 120 0.53 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 2.4486429 150 0.53 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 180 0.52 210 0.51 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) = 6.7E-05 240 0.51 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) _ 270 0.51 300 0.50 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) = 7.0E-04 360 0.49 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) _ 420 0.48 480 0.47 540 0.46 600 0.45 660 0.44 720 0.43 780 0.42 900 0.42 1120 0.41 1240 0.40 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 15 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 3.27 ref. WL only Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.15625 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 17.23 Length of casing above ground: 2.75 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 17.23 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)]_ 22.52 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 20 K = [R(c)"2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 110.272 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find A,B R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cat and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) 5.1 Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) 0.8 C (L(w) = H) time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0500 4.86 0.0500 1.59 Y(0) 1.141997999 0.0666 4.81 0.0666 1.54 t(sec.) 40.002 0.0833 4.73 0.0833 1.46 Y(t) 0.9 0.1000 4.65 0.1000 1.38 Calculations: 0.1166 4.57 0.1166 1.30 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.322219524 0.1333 4.51 0.1333 1.24 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 0.1500 4.46 0.1500 1.19 0.1666 4.42 0.1666 1.15 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) = 4.0E-06 0.1833 4.38 0.1833 1.11 if L(w) = H, K (1t/sec) _ 0.2000 4.36 0.2000 1.09 0.2166 4.34 0.2166 1.07 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) = 1 2E-04 0.2333 4.32 0.2333 1.05 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) _ 0.2500 4.31 0.2500 1.04 0.2666 4.29 0.2666 1.02 0.2633 4.28 0.2833 1.01 0.3000 4.27 0.3000 1.00 0.3166 4.27 0.3166 1.00 0.3333 4.26 0.3333 0.99 0.4167 4.23 0.4167 0.96 0.5000 4.21 0.5000 0.94 0.5833 4.19 0.5833 0.92 0.6667 4.17 0.6667 0.90 0.7500 4.16 0.7500 0.89 0.8333 4.15 0.8333 0.88 0.9167 4.14 0.9167 0.87 1.0000 4.13 1.0000 0.86 1.0833 4.12 1.0833 0.85 1.1667 4.12 1.1667 0.85 1.2500 4.11 1.2500 0.84 1.3333 4.10 1.3333 0.83 1.4166 4.10 1.4166 0.83 1.5000 4.09 1.5000 0.82 1.5833 4.08 1.5833 0.81 1.6667 4.08 1.6667 0.81 1.7500 4.07 1.7500 0.80 1.8333 4.07 1.8333 0.80 1.9167 4.06 1.9167 0.79 2.0000 4.06 2.0000 0.79 2.5000 4.03 2.5000 0.76 3.0000 4.01 3.0000 0.74 3.5000 3.99 3.5000 0.72 4.0000 3.96 4.0000 0.69 4.5000 3.95 4.5000 0.68 5.0000 3.93 5.0000 0.66 5.5000 3.92 5.5000 0.65 6.0000 3.90 6.0000 0.63 6.5000 3.89 6.5000 0.62 7.0000 3.87 7.0000 0.60 8.0000 3.85 8.0000 0.58 O,1 �-;, 8.5000 3.84 8.5000 0.57 0'- -:Lin(MA 1 9.0000 3.83 9.0000 0.56 9.5000 3.82 9.5000 0.55 10.0000 3.82 10.0000 0.55 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 19 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 13.09 Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.1667 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 10 Length of casing above ground: 2.06 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 19.91 Wtr level to top of casing NM 15.15 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 19.91 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 59.9880024 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cel and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 3 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0000 15.23 0.0000 0.08 Y(0) 1.27124554 0.0033 15.92 0.0033 0.77 t(sec.) 120 0.0066 17.31 0.0066 2.16 Y(t) 0.09 0.0099 17.16 0.0099 2.01 Calculations: 0.0133 17.16 0.0133 2.01 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 0.0166 17.12 0.0166 1.97 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.571407081 0.0200 17.04 0.0200 1.89 0.0233 17.00 0.0233 1.85 if L(w) < H, K (11/sec) _ 0.0266 16.96 0.0266 1.81 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 27E-05 0.0300 16.93 0.0300 1.78 0.0333 16.88 0.0333 1.73 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) 0.0500 16.74 0.0500 1.59 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 8 3E-04 0.0666 16.61 0.0666 1.46 0.0833 16.52 0.0833 1.37 0.1000 16.42 0.1000 1.27 0.1166 16.34 0.1166 1.19 0.1333 16.26 0.1333 1.11 0.1500 16.20 0.1500 1.05 0.1666 16.13 0.1666 0.98 0.1833 16.08 0.1833 0.93 0.2000 16.03 0.2000 0.88 0.2133 15.99 0.2133 0.84 0.2333 15.94 0.2333 0.79 0.2500 15.91 0.2500 0.76 0.2666 15.87 0.2666 0.72 0.2833 15.84 0.2833 0.69 0.3000 15.81 0.3000 0.66 0.3166 15.78 0.3166 0.63 0.3333 15.75 0.3333 0.60 0.4167 15.64 0.4167 0.49 0.5000 15.56 0.5000 0.41 0.5833 15.49 0.5833 0.34 0.6667 15.45 0.6667 0.30 0.7500 15.41 0.7500 0.26 0.8333 15.38 0.8333 0.23 0.9167 15.35 0.9167 0.20 1.0000 15.33 1.0000 0.18 1.0833 15.32 1.0833 0.17 1.1667 15.30 1.1667 0.15 1.2500 15.29 1.2500 0.14 1.3333 15.28 1.3333 0.13 1.4166 15.27 1.4166 0.12 1.5000 15.26 1.5000 0.11 1.5833 15.26 1.5833 0.11 1.6667 15.25 1.6667 0.10 1.7500 15.25 1.7500 0.10 1.8333 15.25 1.8333 0.10 1.9167 15.24 1.9167 0.09 2.0000 15.24 2.0000 0.09 �„ 2.5000 15.22 2.5000 0.07 ei 0.- - -"jra ' :1 3.0000 15.21 3.0000 0.06 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 20 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 8.8 Date Tested: 5/15/90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.0833 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.15625 Description of Test Section: Sandstone Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 20 Length of casing above ground: 2.08 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 29.2 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 10.88 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 29.2 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 128 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cel and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 8.5 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(0 Analysis of test results: 0.0200 12.89 0.0200 2.01 Y(0) 1.889623329 0.0233 12.59 0.0233 1.71 t(sec.) 9.996 0.0266 12.81 0.0266 1.93 Y(t) 1.62 0.0300 12.81 0.0300 1.93 Calculations: 0.0330 12.68 0.0330 1.80 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 0.0500 12.67 0.0500 1.79 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.613858744 0.0666 12.63 0.0666 1.75 0.0833 12.58 0.0833 1.70 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) _ 0.1000 12.56 0.1000 1.68 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 9.7E-06 0.1166 12.55 0.1166 1.67 0.1333 12.53 0.1333 1.65 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ 0.1500 12.52 0.1500 1.64 if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 9 •R-04. 0.1666 12.50 0.1666 1.62 0.1633 12.49 0.1833 1.61 0.2000 12.48 0.2000 1.60 0.2166 12.47 0.2166 1.59 0.2333 12.47 0.2333 1.59 0.2500 12.46 0.2500 1.58 0.2666 12.45 0.2666 1.57 0.2833 12.44 0.2833 1.56 0.3000 12.44 0.3000 1.56 0.3166 12.43 0.3166 1.55 0.3333 12.42 0.3333 1.54 0.4167 12.40 0.4167 1.52 0.5000 12.37 0.5000 1.49 0.5833 12.35 0.5833 1.47 0.6667 12.33 0.6667 1.45 0.7500 12.31 0.7500 1.43 0.8333 12.30 0.8333 1.42 0.9167 12.28 0.9167 1.40 1.0000 12.27 1.0000 1.39 1.0833 12.25 1.0833 1.37 1.1667 12.24 1.1667 1.36 1.2500 12.23 1.2500 1.35 1.3333 12.22 1.3333 1.34 1.4166 12.20 1.4166 1.32 1.5000 12.19 1.5000 1.31 1.5833 12.18 1.5833 1.30 1.6667 12.17 1.6667 1.29 1.7500 12.16 1.7500 1.28 • 1.8333 12.15 1.8333 1.27 1.9167 12.14 1.9167 1.26 2.0000 12.13 2.0000 1.25 2.5000 12.08 2.5000 1.20 3.0000 12.04 3.0000 1.16 3.5000 12.00 3.5000 1.12 4.0000 11.96 4.0000 1.08 4.5000 11.93 4.5000 1.05 ,.E r 5.0000 11.90 5.0000 1.02 4-1- --,-•-i j'�:_.t 5.5000 11.87 5.5000 0.99 6.0000 11.84 6.0000 0.96 6.5000 11.81 6.5000 0.93 7.0000 11.79 7.0000 0.91 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 23 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 42.16 Date Tested: May-90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.08333 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.15625 Description of Test Section: CLS/SCS Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 8.34 Length of casing above ground: 2.59 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 8.34 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)] 44.75 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 8.34 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 53.376 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cei and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 2.9 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0000 53.38 0.0000 8.63 Y(0) 7.760434783 20.0000 52.46 20.0000 7.71 t(sec.) 21900 365.0000 51.59 365.0000 6.84 Y(t) 6.84 7350.0000 48.96 7350.0000 4.21 Calculations: if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.022090172 if L(w) < H, K (tt/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 7.3E-09 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 7.2P-07 e4 rtiz-i rs`. Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: MW 35 Static Water Level (ft) [Y(s)]: 29.22 Date Tested: May-90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.08333 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.15625 Description of Test Section: CLS/SMS Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 10 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)]: 23.8 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 23.8 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) where: L(e)/R(w) 64 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from centerline and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 5.2 time (sec) Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0 23.28 Y(0) 22.75864273 282600 17.19 t 1123200 - 1123200 3.57 Y(t) 3.57 Calculations: if L(w) c H, In[R(e)/R(w) if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.33208232 If L(w) c H, K (ft/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 1.9E-09 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 5.8E-08 Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Worksheet Boring Number: 44 Static Water Level to surface (ft) : 39.69 Date Tested: Jul-90 Radius of Pipe (ft) [R(c)]: 0.15625 Logged By: K. White Boring Radius (ft) [R(w)]: 0.08333 Description of Test Section: sandy shale Length of screen (ft) [L(e)]: 6.31 Length of casing above ground: 2.65 Water column length tested (ft) [L(w)] 6.31 Wtr level to top of casing [Y(s)1_ 42.34 Aquifer thickness (ft) [H]: 6.31 K = [R(c)^2 * In(R(e)/R(w))] / (2L(e)) * (1/t) * In(Y(0)/Y(t)) L(e)/R(w) 75.7230289 K = hydraulic conductivity of aquifer around well L(w) to H relation: find C R(e) = effective radial distance over which y is dissipated Using resulting value of L(e)/R(w) R(w) = radial distacne of undisturbed portion of aquifer from cet and A,B,C Parameters Chart find: Y = deviation from static water level [Y(t)-Y(s)] A (L(w) < H) Y(t) = length to water level in well at time t B (L(w) < H) C (L(w) = H) 3.9 time (.0000 min) WL Test Value Chart Time Y(t) Analysis of test results: 0.0000 43.09 0.0000 0.75 Y(0) 0.720118247 1.0000 43.08 1.0000 0.74 t(sec.) 4800 2.0000 43.06 2.0000 0.72 Y(t) 0.51 3.0000 43.06 3.0000 0.72 Calculations: 4.0000 43.04 4.0000 0.70 if L(w) < H, In[R(e)/R(w) 5.0000 43.04 5.0000 0.70 if L(w) = H, In[R(e)/R(w) 3.271005923 6.0000 43.04 6.0000 0.70 7.0000 43.04 7.0000 0.70 if L(w) < H, K (ft/sec) _ 48.0000 42.94 48.0000 0.60 if L(w) = H, K (ft/sec) = 4,5E-07 80.0000 42.85 80.0000 0.51 if L(w) < H, K (cm/sec) _ if L(w) = H, K (cm/sec) = 1 4E-05 elf r-1 APPENDIX D Groundwater Testing Analytical Results, Shallow Groundwater Chemistry e 17, "f I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 1 06/13/90 • LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08 : 16 I __. _____ _ _==_= Page 1 = Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave. , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 1 Lab No . : 90--WI/03341 Sample Date Time : 05/10/90 14: 15 Date Received: 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaC03 935 . mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaC03 935 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 292 • mg/1 Carbonate as CaC03 0 . mg/1 Carbon , total organic 38 . mg/ 1 Chloride 86. mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 144. mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 150 . mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeidahl 1 . 4 mg/1 Oil and Grease 1 . mg/1 pH ( lab) 7. 7 units Sodium, dissolved 1450 . mg/1 Sulfate 372` . mg/1 Solids , total dissolved 7 :92 . mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 53 . ug/ 1 as CI Copper , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Iron , dissolved . 03 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved . 27 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is loss than " <" Frank E. Polniak , Inorganic Lab Supervisor I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 1. 07/27/90, Water Analysis Report 11 : 28 I .....................................s__._.az._.. Page 1 ......... • Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 4 Lab No . : 90-WI/03345 Sample Date Time: 05/10/90 17: 15 Date Received: 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 690 . mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 690 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 496 . mg/I Carbonate as CaCO3 0 . mg/I Chloride 360 . mg/1 pH ( lab) 7. 7 units Hardness as CaCO3 2232 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 242 . mg/1 Nitrate as N, dissolved 494. 72 mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 495 . mg/1 Nitrite as N, dissolved . 28 mg/I Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 2 . 3 mg/1 SAR in water 25 . 05 Sodium, dissolved 2690 . mg/1 Sulfate 5124. mg/1 Solids , total dissolved 10580 . mg/1 Anions (sum) 131 . 48 meq/1 Copper , dissolved - . 1 mg/1 Iron, dissolved - . 2 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved 1 . 1 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 1 mg/I Remarks : • Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " t" Frank E. Polniak, Inorganic Lab Supervisor ibla—Ar("7 S i.':.;„S ,.1 ?_ _ -=_-_=-------- ---------- - - --- --- -- - -...-- - t ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 1 06/13/90 LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08 : 15 1 ____=_______=_____________ _.x= Page 1 =________ Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn. : .Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 4A Lab No. : 90-W1/03338 Sample Date Time : 05/10/90 16 :55 Date Received : 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 374. mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 374 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 59 . mg/1 Carbonate as CaCO3 O . mg/1 Carbon, total organic 6 . mg/1 Chloride 98 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 38 . mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 18. 2 mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 . 4 mg/1 Oil and Grease 1 . mg/1 pH ( lab ) 8 . 2 units Sodium, dissolved 568. mg/1 Sulfate 1185 • mg/ 1 Solids , total dissolved 2162. mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 39 . ug/1 as C1 Copper , dissolved -- . 01 mg/1 Iron , dissolved - . 02 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved -- . 01 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is loss than " < " Frank E. Polniak, Inorganic Lab Supervisor /e Y Aeti4 al for PP eir zis 1 ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 06/13/90 - LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08 : 16 1 _ __ -.•----= Page 1 Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn. . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 7A Lab No . : 90-WI/03342 Sample Date Time: 05'10/90 19 : 30 Date Received : 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 324. mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 324 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 351 . mg/1 Carbonate as CaCO3 0 . mg/I Carbon , total organic 13 . mg/1 Chloride 13 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 290 , mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 4. 2 mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 . 9 mg/ 1 Oil and Grease 1 . mg/1 pH ( lab ) 8 . 1 units Sodium, dissolved 1600 . mg/1 Sulfate 6114. mg/1 Solids , total dissolved 9474. mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 41 . ug/1 as CI Copper , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Iron , dissolved . 04 mg/1 Manganese, dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " <" Frank E. Poll�niak, Inorganic Lab Supervisor XV dgidlitt hr ii° I ACZ LABORATORIES INC - -_ -^ - - - - DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 106/13/90 • LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 03: 15 I - ---- - -_== Page 1 =___.= Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn. . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 10 Lab No. : 90-WI/03337 Sample Date Time: 05/10/90 1900 Date Received : 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 249 . mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 247 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 9 . mg/1 Carbonate as CaCO3 2 . mg/1 Carbon, total organic G . mg/1 Chloride 5 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 8 . mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 1 . 10 mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 . 5 mg/1 Oil and Grease 1 • mg/1 pH ( lab ) 8 . 3 units Sodium, dissolved 124. mg/1 Sulfate 121 . mg/1 Solids , total dissolved 370 . mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 6 . ug/1 as C1 Copper , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Iron , dissolved . 06 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " <" Frank E. Polniak, Inorganic Lab Supervisor 7-'44 gat,1 Ae 1P e i r s, -) I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 107/27/90 Water Analysis Report 11 : 27 I Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 11 Lab No . : 90-WI/03344 Sample Date Time: 05/12/90 11 : 50 Date Received : 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaC03 241 . Mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaC03 241 . mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 37. mg/1 Carbon , total organic 26 . mg/1 Carbonate as CaC03 0 . mg/1 - Chloride 28 • mg/1 pH ( lab ) 8 . 1 units Hardness as CaC03 179 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 21 . mg/ 1 Nitrate as N, dissolved 13 . 25 mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 13 . 4 mg/1 Nitrite as N, dissolved . 15 mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 . 4 mg/1 Oil and Grease -1 . mg/1 SAR in water 9 . 55 Sodium, dissolved 290 . mg/1 Sulfate 422 . mg/ I Total Organic Halogens 33 . ug/1 as C1 Solids , total dissolved 1058 . mg/I Anions (sum) 14. 47 meg/1 Copper, dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Iron, dissolved - . 02 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved . 25 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " < " Frank E. Polniak , organic Lab Supervisor il'ilet � C rF"117v I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 06/13/90 - LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08 : 16 I _==xG = - Page 1 = Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 15 Lab No. : 90-WI/03343 Sample Date Time : 05/11/90 13 : 00 Date Received: 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaC03 242 . mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaC03 242 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 339. mg/1 Carbonate as CaC03 0 . mg/1 Carbon , total organic 8 . mg/1 Chloride 114. mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 400 . mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 4. 0 mg/1 Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 .5 mg/ 1 Oil and Grease -1 . mg/1 pH ( lab ) S . units Sodium, dissolved 3138 . mg/1 Sulfate 8705 . mg/1 Solids , total dissolved 13436 . mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 31 . ug/1 as C1 Copper , dissolved - . 1 mg/1 Iron , dissolved - • 2 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved . 1 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 1 mg/1 Remarks : Note: Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " < " Frank E. Polniak, Inorganic Lab Supervisor /Q U admi Ar FP • elr ≤ r1c.4 I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 106/13/90 - LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08: 15 I __=====a==_= Page 1 =__ Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 19 Lab No . : 90-WI/03339 Sample Date Time : 05/10/90 15 : 15 Date Received: 05/16/90 , Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 954. mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 954 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 266 , mg/1 Carbonate as CaCO3 O . mg/1 Carbon , total organic 30. mg;i Chloride 104. mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 94. mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 9 .2 mg/1 Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl 1 . 3 mg/1 Oil and Grease -1 . mg/1 pH ( lab ) 7. 7 units Sodium, dissolved 948 . mg/1 Sulfate 2430 . mg/1 Solids, total dissolved 4528. mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 9 . ug/1 as Cl Copper, dissolved -- . 01 mg/1 Iron, dissolved . 02 mg/1 Manganese , dissolved . 53 mg/1 Zinc, dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : CM> Note: Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " < " Frank E. Poiniak , Inorganic Lab Supervisor /eY galvit i;e 6° 17 1. -1 . .. I ACZ LABORATORIES INC DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM I 106/13/90 , LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 08 : 15 I _____ Page 1 =________ Client : Kip R. White Address : 8745 West 14th Ave . , Suite 216 Lakewood , CO 80215 Attn . . Project : 8912-04 Sample ID: MW 20 Lab No . : 90-WI/03340 Sample Date Time: 05/10/90 14:45 Date Received: 05/16/90 Parameters Alkalinity as CaCO3 618 . mg/1 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 618 mg/1 Calcium, dissolved 105 . mg/1 Carbonate as CaCO3 0 . mg/I Carbon, total organic 14. mg/I Chloride 53 . mg/1 Magnesium, dissolved 33 . mg/1 Nitrate/Nitrite as N 2 . 98 mg/I Nitrogen , total Kjeldahl 1 . 9 mg/1 Oil and Grease -1 . mg/1 pH ( lab ) 7. 4 units Sodium, dissolved 576 , mg/1 Sulfate 1'227. mg/I Solids , total dissolved 2306 . mg/1 Total Organic Halogens 6 . ug/1 as C1 Copper , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Iron, dissolved - . 02 mg/ 1 Manganese , dissolved .22 mg/1 Zinc , dissolved - . 01 mg/1 Remarks : Note : Negative sign "-" denotes that the value is less than " < " Frank E. Polniak , Inorganic Lab Supervisor R v that Ion rip sii.r. , is. _� . APPENDIX E Water Balance Calculations WATER BALANCE A water balance has been performed on the proposed E.R.D. Landfill site to determine 1) the potential impact of the landfill operations to recharge of the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer, 2) the infiltration characteristics of the proposed final topography and the potential for leachate generation for sizing of the leachate sumps, and 3) sizing of the runoff retention pond. The water balance calculations are presented on Tables E-1 and E-2. The water balance approach outlined in EPA/530/SW-168, 1975 was followed for this pre- sentation. Precipitation data for Brighton, Colorado, collected between 1961 and 1980, and obtained from the Colorado Climate Center, has been utilized. To develop estimates of evapotranspiration,pan evaporation data,obtained from the Cherry Creek Reservoir by the Army Corps of Engineers between 1968 and 1985, was utilized as base data. These data were refined by the coefficients developed by Wymore(quoted in McWhorter and Sunada, 1981)to develop the estimates of potential evapotranspiration utilized in the water balance. See Table E-1 for estimates of potential evapotranspiration. Estimates of actual evapotran- spiration are further refined by accounting for deficiencies in soil moisture storage which develop during the months of low precipitation and limit potential evapotranspiration by the amount of available moisture. The water balance presented in Table E-1 is based on the final proposed landfill topogra- phy. The final average slope of the top of the landfill will be approximately 10 percent and the root zone of the revegetated cover about 1.5 feet. Since potential evapotranspiration (PET)exceeds infiltration in all but three months, no per- colation should be anticipated at the site under normal hydrologic conditions. The water balance presented in Table E-1 assumes that the soil is saturated in March, the last month when infiltration exceeds PET, and carries the balance through one year. The water deficit clearly demonstrates that under normal conditions no percolation can be expected. In ex- tended periods of excessive moisture,however, it can be expected that the soil will become saturated, and some infiltration and deep percolation will occur. There are three months, December, January, and March, during which precipitation (discounting surface runoff) exceeds potential evapotranspiration, When normal rainfall occurs on already saturated soils during March, percolation could be as much as 0.09 inches. C 51,5 POTENTIAL RECHARGE TO THE LARAMIE FOX-HILLS AQUIFER The water balance shows that under normal hydrologic conditions no recharge to the under- lying aquifer will occur through the soil cover. This water balance applies to the existing site conditions as well as to the final proposed topography. Although the proposed site is located in a region defined as a potential recharge zone for the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer, evaluation, during this investigation, of site specific geology indicated that actual recharge to the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer is unlikely across most of the landfill area due to extremely low permeability claystone and shale bedrock(less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec) which minimizes vertical movement of water which percolates beyond the root zone. The maximum amount of potential recharge to the Laramie-Fox Hills beneath the site is 0.41 inches (and this only under saturated conditions). This corresponds to 0.51 acre-ft per year. Based on an estimate of 3.5 persons per residence and an estimated water re- quired of 75 gallons per day per person, this recharge would supply 1.8 residences per year. Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed landfill site on the recharge character- istics of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is insignificant. LEACHATE SUMP DESIGN RATIONAL The water balance also indicates that the potential of the landfill for generation of leachate is relatively small. If the landfill is properly graded and maintained, the generation of leachate, except during unusual hydrologic conditions, will be minimal. Two leachate collection sumps have been provided to collect any leachate which may de- velop. It has been assumed that saturated conditions exist and that the maximum percola- tion occurs. This would occur in March, the month with the maximum difference between infiltration(I)and PET. The difference between I and PET during March is 0.09 inches. Using the maximum leachate collection areas of the landfill (104 and 96 acres respectively for Phases 1 and 2), this infiltration would correspond to production of approximately 0.8 acre-feet of leachate for each sump. A leachate sump to provide storage under such a worst case scenario for 15 days will be provided. In addition to the storage reservoir provided by the sump, discharge pumps will be provided with submersible pumps rated at not less than :91 :i of 20 gpm capacity at the total dynamic level. The pump will be able to discharge the antici- pated maximum leachate during an eight hour daily pumping schedule. For practical pumping efficiency a minimum sump depth(excluding freeboard)of 10 feet is required. The leachate collection system described will allow for a reservoir capacity equal to half of the worst anticipated monthly leachate production and a pumpage capacity (utilizing an eight hour pumping schedule) equal to the same production. This system redundancy is expected to exceed leachate production under any foreseeable climatic conditions. PHASE 2 RUNOFF RETENTION POND DESIGN RATIONAL The runoff retention pond for Phase 2 was designed to contain runoff from a 100 year, 24- hour precipitation event(4.2 inches)over 15 acres as well as the the maximum runoff (.58 inches) for any given month on a 15 acre area. The total storage volume required is ap- proximately six acre-feet. The water balance calculations for the maximum monthly runoff are presented in Table E-2. It should be noted that cumulative capacity for monthly runoff is unnecessary, because the evaporation rates exceed the precipitation for every month of the year. Sl,rS N a m In CO in CO 10 0 r ? rn o c o v n rn n c c - j r m ca m m m o a a o Ori r r N C'')) N � N N O m N r C- • N O O O o 0 0 O o 0 o O n 0) o O o O ut O m co o n C m0 CO 0) r m m m m V O M n r to CO n co N 7 C) n r CO N O N O Ni o r O o O o ci o O r v o 0 0 0 > v o r Z _ — m m r O CO 10 10 CO rn n N n m r CO n o : m n to to r r rn N e N rn rn N o n o v6 6 o r o 0 0 0 n of o 0 0 0 r co C O O( 1. 0) 10 n CI CO o m co m o to m o at N m o e n CO m m N CO V N CO O n e± N O O O N O O O tD r O a O O W r O W .: 1- N — N 10 N r CO m 0 m CO N m m Cl m CO O ..... C) O N O N. N N CO N O N N O r N Cl CO. O Lm O CO O V r O O r C� O fN0 O 0 r o N Q c? m —\ n m co' O co O N m < m r V N N O < O I. g 0 C) n O CO m m CO N O m O N N m r O : O) Oi O r O IN r o O r O rn O of O • '7 c r N. N r • rn m U a J • • r C '= 0 'N '� rn m O O rn m N N N N m O r N N O N r r m W ' co m rn rn V . N rn m N G v CO 0 m 0 O O O O P) COcg OO E C .•._._•...'i Cr l0 J J 0 r n O COet n N N C) O ..... 0 a N N O O r m N 0 a r m m m m n o m o a rn m m m c o : N • 10 O Q O N N O r r N N CJ C) O : : U I, � � UN L -- m m n O CO O N O O m m rn rn r C) C) O : U a J rn n rn m n o N N CO O < r CO O R ' O COO N O r N O O r O O N r N p O 99� CND O ` i...._. L 0 l0 _�Q � O m U co to N O N N N m m rn O O O m O : $ rn G '. to r r to m O co co m O O O co a m O r r O r O O r O O O O O O r b o c) Ijl, 2 m m a C r O CI of n fm0 loo o co co r N Or co N N co cs) N O N O : ' 0 E CI 0 O O O a O O O O O O r O O O O m c a v > o i m L O a N co mV) m m CO N n O m0 N V O: Cm 'C W n n m N N O rn r N O m N ri N M O O: .I 6 m y o o O0 O O O O o O r o)SrD O O O O • O w v r (�0 _ N. • 0 m 1—°5 --1 p a 9m uu c ,--..- d m H a 0 J O.° ¢ A m o 1p v c m rn c r 0 O N 0 m rn • C -I, c • 0 E yE r o c m ` r p — 6 n E N .m a m O COos m L r a U m °o W W E v 0 c : c q N d c a a n. DT m — a a E c @ o • o �i m 03 J Q C O a 4 O. d ,o a m a p m 0 O m C Gj r 0 N C > : m 0 0 R., .. : O o ; a o o c c - m Y in E o c c .a � a m w o o C 0 m 03 o m a 5 0 a a c 0 o 0 m c c = a E E o o m S a o - fr 03 0 O O O ` J C - 0 a 0 0 o 0 a '' a d U ¢ a q R•1 r.If_:`q f 'R � 3.. I O) O N n i0 CO N- O N N 7 co n n a U O O O O o o O 0 r N N CO n n O O O O N O O O 2 IA O In CO N O O N- N (O N- N O • 0 0 o e o CO o O N N N n co o W N m C • CD a 00 0 v o CO U ¢ m m c co ON it) N (O O 2) � E O N N CO n O N .O d 0 0 0 m 0 Z U m_ m p O Q O • m 10 A C O O N N. N (`9 co O C ¢ O O CO N (O CO I,- O N T) • s O ¢ _ 0 o m 0 n c U J • 3 E ••• U n p rn o o m LO e m o o Z v V N CO N- H m Q C ,- O O co O co • • .c .a J o • U o O L J IL _ m y • co N co O C n coo (7 • N -O co C T • N O O (O O V N • • (`p m N T m p ro m 0 c., • O O O co in N- O O O U O N V CO N. W CD O 0 O. N O O M O N y m m V Q • J N O O CO N N N O Q. C O N N to n co E Id 1— O O � O r O T N O [D al o w 2 • • o CO c n O n O )O Co O O L N C 09 N O O) n CO CJ p) a 0 O o 0 0 0 o E `m m m • p N W CD c w W N O • O O � c) O O O C N O n n )O CO 3 cc C O O O O O O O « CO m m �° H ' c a .Q o m a m y m ¢ o m a N m • p a m y al 0 n • o _ m rn rn o m m m c To -o E d z c rn o o m 73 m •N O •C -p a --, m n N 0 V > m m re •• .r)- o E m = C N U J O. ED, m L> C N O • U • C d -mp > N Q d U m m • — • (0 O 3 m U c d O (C6 p m c • • m c m O W N _ m o d p III 0 m COm m Fu m o E E:. c w ¢ m 3 0 °n 6CD a w o w c (` o O c R c m _ d • J > O N U G O a 2 2 ) • •ES F 2 ¢ Lt .- d a` Y U ¢ ,C•1 c' f-,�N)- APPENDIX F Construction Quality Assurance Quality Control Plan for the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co.Landfill TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 2 1.2 GENERAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS 2 1.3 ORGANIZATION AND USE OF THE CQAQCP 3 1.3.1 Definition and Responsibility of Parties 3 1.3.1.1 Construction Engineer 3 1.3.1.2 Design Engineer 4 1.3.1.3. Facility Owner/Operator 4 1.3.1.4 General Contractor 4 1.3.1.5 Geosynthetic Installer 5 1.3.1.6 Geosynthetic Manufacturers 5 1.3.1.7 Resin Supplier 5 1.3.1.8 Soils Testing Laboratory 5 1.3.2 Organization of the CQAQCP Parties 6 1.4 MEETINGS 6 1.5 DOCUMENTATION 7 1.5.1 Daily Construction Reports 7 1.5.2 Problem/Deficiency Identification and Corrective Action Reports 8 1.5.3 Landfill Procedure/System Block Reports 9 1.5.4 Final Construction Documentation Report 10 2.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS 11 2.1 TEST FILL PROGRAM 11 2.1.1 Pre-Construction 11 2.1.2 Materials of Construction 12 2.1.3 Surveying Requirements 12 2.1.4 Field Testing Requirements 12 2.1.5 Laboratory Testing Requirements 13 2.1.6 Placement Specifications 14 2.1.7 Deficiencies and Corrective Actions 15 el r-,41 Til Si i;131.1 131 c1 2.2 WELL AND EXPLORATORY BORING ABANDONMENT PROCEDURES 16 3.0 EARTHEN MATERIALS 17 3.1 SURVEYING REQUIREMENTS 17 3.2 LOW PERMEABELITY SOILS 18 3.2.1 Pre-construction 18 3.2.2 Materials of Construction 19 3.2.3 Field Testing Requirements 19 3.2.4 Laboratory Testing Requirements 20 3.2.5 Soils Acceptance Criteria 20 3.2.6 Placement Requirements 21 3.2.7 Excavation Base Requirements 22 3.2.8 Liner Berms 22 3.2.9 Floor Liner 23 3.2.10 Final Cover 24 3.2.11 Deficiencies and Resolution 24 3.2.12 Documentation Report 25 25 3.3. GRANULAR SOILS 3.3.1 Pre-Construction 25 3.3.2 Materials of Construction 26 3.3.3 Testing Requirements 26 3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria 27 3.3.5 Placement Criteria 27 3.3.6 Deficiencies and Resolutions 27 3.3.7 Post Construction 28 4.0 GEOSYNTHETICS 29 29 4.1 GEOMEMBRANES 4.1.1 Manufacturing 29 4.1.2 Delivery, Handling, and Storage of Geomembrane Rolls 30 4.1.3 Earthwork 31 4.1.4 Placement 31 4.1.5 Damages 32 4.1.6 Defects and Repairs 32 Cl "3S1 4.1.7 Anchor Trench System and Backfilling 3334 4.1.8 Construction Field Seams 4.1.8.1 Seaming Equipment 35 4.1.8.1.1 Extrusion Process 35 4.1.8.1.2 Fusion Process 35 36 4.1.8.2 Seamer Qualifications 36 4.1.8.3 Weather Conditions During Seaming 4.1.8.4 Overlapping and Temporary Bond 37 4.1.8.5 Trial Seams 37 4.1.8.6 General Seaming Procedures 38 4.1.8.7 Nondestructive Testing 3839 4.1.8.7.1 Ultrasonic Shadow Testing 4.1.8.7.2 Vacuum Box Test 39 4.1.8.7.3 Air Pressure Testing 40 41 4.2 GEOTEXTILE LINER COVER 41 4.2.1 Manufacturing 42 4.2.2 Delivery Handling and Storage of Geotextile Rolls 4.2.3 Handling and Placement 4344 4.2.3.1 Seams and Overlaps 44 4.2.3.2 Repairs 45 4.2.4 Placement of Soil Materials List of Tables 14 Table 1 Laboratory Testing for the Test Fill at the E.R.D. Landfill Table 2 Laboratory Testing for Clay Fill at E.R.D. Landfill 20 Table 3 Gradation Limits for C-33 Sand 26 Table 4 Required Properties for Geotextile Liner Cover 41 Sil ff3-5 1 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (CQAQCP) has been prepared as part of the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. (E.R.D.)Permit Application for a proposed landfill located in southwestern Weld County, Colorado, Section 28, T 1N, R 68W. This CQAQCP addresses the quality assurance of the construction and installation of environmental control systems at the proposed E.R.D. Landfill, including earthen materials (low permeability soils, sand, and gravel) and man-made materials (geomembranes and geotextiles). In addition the abandonment of existing wells and borings within the landfill area is addressed. This CQAQCP is intended to be a "working" document; i.e., one that is updated to reflect changes in specific materials used, in installation practices,or in tests and test methods. The CQAQCP includes the construction procedures for the following systems within the E.R.D. Landfill: 1. Test fill. 2. Liner berms 1 and 2. 3. Soil fill for liner foundation. 4. Landfill floor liner. 5. Geomembrane and geotextile installation for Phases 1 and 2 leachate sumps. 6. Leachate drain system(from landfill to leachate sumps). 7. Final cover. 8. Abandonment of existing wells and borings located within the landfill. The scope of this CQAQCP includes the quality assurance applicable to the above eight landfill systems for the following: 1. Soil excavation and placement. 2. Manufacturing, fabricating, shipping, handling, and installation of the geosyn- thetic components. 3. Drilling out and grouting borings and wells to be abandoned. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 2 1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL Quality assurance and quality control are defined as follows: Ouality Assurance is a planned and systematic pattern of all means and actions designed to provide adequate confidence that materials or services meet contractual and regulatory re- quirements, and that these materials will perform satisfactorily in service. Quality Control refers to those actions taken by the Manufacturer or Installer to insure that the materials and workmanship meet the requirements of the CQAQCP plans, and specifi- cations. Quality control is provided by the manufacturers of the various components except that this plan does address specific quality control sampling to be performed by the Construction Engineer. 1.2 GENERAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS This CQAQCP includes references to test procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54 Flexible Membrane Liners, and the Geosynthetics Research Institute (GRI). Unless indicated otherwise, tests will be performed in strict accordance with the referenced test procedure and the description included in this plan. Any deviations to test procedures called out in this plan must be approved, in writing, by the Construction Engineer prior to commencement of any work. Prior to the start of any testing required by this document, the Geosynthetic and Soil Testing Laboratories will submit to the Engineer their Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. The Engineer will review the plans and make any recommendations to the respective laboratories concerning changes. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 3 1.3 ORGANIZATION AND USE OF THE CQAQCP The Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan is divided into four main sec- tions as follows: Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 Pre-Construction Operations Section 3.0 Earthen Materials Section 4.0 Geosynthetics This organization is based on general construction procedures and materials and does not follow the actual sequence of systems as they are constructed within the landfill modules. 1.3.1 Definition and Responsibility of Parties The successful completion of the E.R.D.Landfill construction is dependent on the interac- tion of several qualified parties. These parties include those associated with the ownership; design and specification preparation; manufacture, fabrication, transportation, installation, and quality assurance of the geosynthetics; and the placement, testing, and quality assur- ance of construction with earthen materials. While the Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH) is involved in the review and approval of this CQAQCP, it is not a party to the actual implementation and day-today activities of the plan except that final documenta- tion reports will be submitted to the CDH. Within each of the following party descriptions,reference is made to title and, where appli- cable,to the individuals within that party responsible for carrying out the provisions of this CQAQCP. 1.3.1.1 Construction Engineer The Owner/Operator will retain an independent consulting firm to fulfill the role of Construction Engineer. The Construction Engineer will provide overall coordination of documentation submitted in support of this plan and will provide surveying (horizontal and vertical control). Submittal of the CQAQCP Documentation Report to the Colorado r1 . 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 4 Department of Health will therefore be made by the Construction Engineer on behalf of the Owner/Operator. The term "Construction Engineer" is used throughout this document when reference is made to the tasks performed by this role. The Construction Engineer will observe, test, and document activities related to the quality assurance of the excavation, placement, and construction of the berms, compacted clay liner, and other work related to earthen materials and installation of geosynthetics in the leachate sumps. The Construction Engineer will have a staff of personnel available for assignment to the job site during construction activities. 1.3.1.2 Design Engineer The Design Engineer is the company hired by the Owner/Operator to prepare the Landfill Design, Operations, and Closure Plan. The term "Engineer" is used throughout this docu- ment to indicate the official representative of the Design Engineer,whether on site or not. 1.3.1.3. Facility Owner/Operator Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. is the proposed Owner/Operator of the landfill facility. The term "Owner/Operator" is used throughout this document to indicate the offi- cial representative of the Owner/Operator. 1.3.1.4 General Contractor The General Contractor's role will be performed by the Owner/Operator to furnish overall construction responsibility for the completion of the landfill facility. It is assumed in this CQAQCP that the General Contractor will also be responsible for hiring the Geosynthetic Installer (see below). It is also assumed that the Earthwork Contractor and Drilling Contractor and the General Contractor are one and the same. The term "Contractor" is used through this document when reference is made to the tasks and responsibilities for this role. y 11,Cif.: ", 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 5 1.3.1.5 Geosynthetic Installer The Geosynthetic Installer is the company hired by the General Contractor to install the Geosynthetic components referenced in this plan. The term "Installer" is used throughout this plan when reference is made to the tasks and responsibilities of the Geosynthetic Installer. 1.3.1.6 Geosynthetic Manufacturers The Geosynthetic Manufacturers are those hired by the General Contractor to furnish the geosynthetic components referenced in this manual. The terms "Geomembrane Manufacturer" and "Geotextile Manufacturer" are used throughout this plan to indicate the specific company supplying these materials to the job site. This plan includes specific quality assurance and quality control requirements for the geosynthetic manufacturers, in their role of providing the quality control for the geosynthetic manufacturers, most notably those manufacturing geomembranes or geotextiles, may also perform the role of the Geosynthetic Installer. 1.3.1.7 Resin Supplier The Resin Supplier is the company or companies selected by the Geomembrane Manufacturer and Geotextile Manufacturer to furnish the polyethylene and polypropylene resins, respectively,used in fabricating the aforementioned components of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 leachate sumps. The term Resin Supplier" is used in this manual to denote, indi- vidually, each respective supplier. Designations of geomembrane resin supplier are not necessary since all communication and responsibilities within this plan are between the re- spective manufacturer and supplier. 1.3.1.8 Soils Testing Laboratory The Soils Testing Laboratory is the independent laboratory hired by the Owner/Operator to perform field and laboratory QA/QC soils tests as indicated in the plan. The term "Soils Testing Laboratory" is used to denote the official representative throughout this manual. The Soils Testing Laboratory will supply technicians as necessary for collection and labora- tory analyses of samples and testing of in-place earthen materials. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 6 1.3.2 Organization of the CQAQCP Parties Overall responsibility for carrying out the provisions of this CQAQCP is with the Construction Engineer. The Construction Engineer will maintain, at the job site, a com- plete set of the construction plans and specifications, a copy of this CQAQCP, and a file of completed reports, data sheets, and checklists submitted to and originated by the Construction Engineer. This includes the submittal of reports and other documents detailed throughout this CQAQCP, in addition to any other responsibilities described in this docu- ment. Following his completion of the plans, drawings, and specifications, the Engineer is re- sponsible,to the Construction Engineer, for any modifications that may have to be made as the result of recurring problems or deficiencies noted during the construction. The Contractor (including any subcontractors that may be brought to the site), and the Installer,report to the Construction Engineer for matters relating to the CQAQCP. For fi- nancial or other issues, the Contractor and Installer will report directly to the Owner/Operator. The Geosynthetic Manufacturers are responsible to the Construction Engineer in any mat- ters related to the work described in this plan. Financial and other questions will be di- rected by the Manufacturers to the Owner/Operator. Resin Suppliers are responsible solely to the respective Geosynthetic Manufacturer to which they are supplying material. The Resin Suppliers have no direct responsibilities set forth in this plan. 1.4 MEETINGS There are three types of meetings which will be required for implementation of this Plan including pre-construction meetings, post Test Fill construction meeting and prob- lem/deficiency meetings. A nre-construction meetine will be conducted immediately prior to Test Fill construction and will be attended by the Soils Testing Laboratory, the Owner/Operator, the Contractor, the Engineer, and the Construction Engineer. The pur- pose of this meeting will be to review this Plan as it applies to Test Fill construction and familiarize all parties with their respective responsibilities. Apost-construction meetine will also be conducted following Test Fill completion to verify the protocol for earthen ma- terials construction based on the results of the Test Fill. A pre-construction meeting will 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 7 also be conducted immediately prior to construction of the leachate sump to be attended by the Soils Testing Laboratory, the Owner/Operator, the Contractor, the Engineer, the Installer, and the Construction Engineer. Problem/deficiency meetings will be conducted, as requested by the Construction Engineer, to work out problems which may arise with the construction or QA/QC testing. 1.5 DOCUMENTATION This section describes the types of documentation reports that must be completed by each party which have direct QA/QC responsibility for the E.R.D. Landfill facility. The parties with these responsibilities are the Construction Engineer and the Soils Testing Laboratory. The documentation of construction quality assurance activities is the most effective method to make certain that the quality assurance requirements have been addressed and satisfied. The documentation process includes: 1) recognition of construction tasks that should be observed and documented, 2) assignment of responsibilities for the observation, testing, and documentation of these tasks, and 3) completion of the required forms, data sheets, and reports to provide an accurate record of the work performed during construction. 1.5.1 Daily Construction Reports The Construction Engineer and the Soils Testing Laboratory will complete a daily summary report of each day's construction activities. This summary report will provide a chronolog- ical record for identifying and recording other reports, data sheets, forms, and checklists. The daily construction report will contain, at a minimum, the following information to be filled out in pen and preferably pre-printed so that the required information is organized in an easily accessible manner: 1. Unique identifying report number for cross-referencing other reports and for better document control. 2. Date, project name, location, and report preparer's name. The number and name of people on site under the direction of the preparer for conducting QA/QC tasks. 3. Time work starts and ends each construction work day. This information should also include any work stoppages due to inclement weather or insufficient equipment or personnel. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 8 4. Data on weather conditions including temperature,humidity, wind direction and speed, cloud cover, and any precipitation events. 5. Contractor's or Installer's work force, equipment in use and idle, and materials delivered to or removed from the job site. 6. Chronological description of work the progress including any notices to, or re- quest from, h Con 7. Results of, or a clear reference to, where the results can be found for testing per- formed on site by personnel under the direction of the p eparrer. 8. Laboratory samples collected, marked, and sent to the outside testing laborato- ries will be clearly indicated in the daily report by direct inclusion or by refer-ence to the document kewise, reference should be included for any test containing t dadatasu t bm tted by any of the outside testing laborato- ries. 9. An accurate record will be kept of communications with other CQAQCP parties, or any other outside companies, regulatory agencies, or consultants regarding the day's construction activities. 10. An accurate record will also be kept of calibrations or standardizations per- formed on field testing equipment, including actions taken as a result of recali- brations. In addition, the result of other data recording, such as geomembrane seam barrel temperatures, will be kept in the daily log or will be adequately cross-referenced for easy location. 1.5.2 Problem/Deficiency Identification and Corrective Action Report Problem and/or deficiency and corrective action reports will be completed by either/or both the Soils Testing Laboratory and the Construction Engineer when any construction material or activity is observed or tested that does not meet the requirements set forth in this plan. These report should be cross-referenced to the forms, data sheet, checklist, and other reports that contain data or observations leading to the determination of a problem or defi- ciency. At a minimum, the Problem/Deficiency Identification and Corrective Action Reports will include the following information: 1. A detailed description of the problem or deficiency, including reference to any supplemental data or observations responsible for determining the problem or deficiency. 2. Location of the problem or deficiency, including how and when the problem or deficiency was discovered. In addition, an estimate of how long the problem or deficiency has existed should be included as well as an opinion as to the proba- ble cause of the problem or deficiency. e Jr, � 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 9 3. A recommended corrective action for resolving the problem or deficiency should also be included in the report. If the corrective action has already been imple- mented, then the observations and documentation to show that the problem or deficiency has been resolved should be included. If the problem or deficiency thas not been he report will cS early olved by te that d�s an unrf the esolved problech mt was or deficiency.discovered, then These reports will be submitted at the end of each working day to the Construction Engineer. If the problem or deficiency has not been resolved, then the Construction Engineer and the preparer will take the necessary corrective actions to resolve the problem or deficiency the next day. The Construction Engineer is responsible to make certain that all Problem/Deficiency Identification Reports have been adequately resolved. The Construction Engineer will carefully review problem and/or deficiency reports to de- termine if similar reports on the same problem or deficiency are an indication of a situation that might require changes to the plans and specifications and/or the CQAQCP. If this sit- uation should develop, a meeting will be held to determine if revisions to the plans or spec- ifications should be made. Any revisions to the plans or specifications or the CQAQCP must be approved by the Construction Engineer and the Engineer. 1.5.3 Landfill Procedure/System Block Reports Landfill Procedure/System Block Reports will be prepared by Construction Engineer for each procedure/system as identified in Section 1.0. At a minimum, each procedure/system report will contain the following: 1. Unique report number for cross-referencing this report to other documents. 2. Name of procedure/system summarized in the report. rformed, les3. col- lected, a d test resu of all lts reported by the respecttservations and tests ive outside testing laboratory. col- 4. Summary of any problems and/or deficiencies encountered during the construc- tion, including any recurring problems or deficiencies that were discovered. 5. Documentation that acceptance criteria were met, including comparison of pro- cedure/system data with construction plans and specifications and requirements set forth in this CQAQCP. 6. A statement that the procedure/system was constructed according to the plans, specifications, and this CQAQCP. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 10 1.5.4 Final Construction Documentation Report The Final Construction Documentation Report will be assembled (and where necessary, edited)by the Construction Engineer. The Final Construction Documentation Report will be assembled by combining each of the Landfill Procedure/System Block Reports dis- cussed above in Section 1.4.3. At a minimum, the Final Construction Documentation Report will contain the following information not specifically covered by the Landfill Procedure/System Block reports: 1. All correspondence with CDH. 2. The entire CQAQC plan in effect at that time. 3. All E.R.D. daily reports. 4. All documentation of required surveys. 5. All problem meeting minutes. 6. All daily reports, field and laboratory results of Soils Testing Laboratory for foundation soils, clay liner soils, and coarse grained soils for leachate drainage systems. 7. Copy of the Geosynthetics Installer's COAQC plan. 8. All QA laboratory testing results for geomembrane by manufacturer 9. All Installer's Daily Reports on panel deployment and seaming for geomem- branes and geotextiles. 10. Geomembrane liner as-built layout plan prepared by the Installer. 11. All QA laboratory test results for geotextiles prepared by the Manufacturer. 12. All shippers listing roll numbers, thickness, and dimensions for geomembranes and geotextiles. 13. Any installation acceptance forms completed by Owner/Operator and Installers. 14. All correspondence, with Soils Testing Laboratory, regarding clay liner instal- lation. 15. As-built construction drawings. ri ct ez 11 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 11 2.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS This part of the CQAQCP includes those general procedures that are required at the outset of construction at the E.R.D Landfill facility. These procedures include the Test Fill Program and the Well and Exploration Boring Abandonment Procedures for exploratory borings and wells within the landfill area. 2.1 TEST FILL PROGRAM The Test Fill Program for the E.R.D. Landfill facility will evaluate and establish effective procedures for the construction of the liner system. During test fill construction, the pri- mary objective will be to identify appropriate construction equipment and procedures nec- essary to consistently achieve the required soil property specifications during full-scale fa- cility construction. The test fill program will be implemented a minimum of 30 days before actual construction of the low permeability soil liner in the landfill. Documentation requirements for the Test Fill Program will be performed by the Construction Engineer. Particular emphasis will be placed on the hydraulic conductivity results of the soil liner; on the soil placement, sampling, and testing; the relationship be- tween in-field hydraulic conductivity; and moisture/density parameters. The test fill area will be constructed in a depression with approximate dimensions of 80 feet x 150 feet with the sidewall at a 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. The construction Engineer, based on site conditions, will select an appropriate location. The Test Fill pro- gram includes the following: 1. Foundation soil preparation. 2. Sampling of the clay liner material for laboratory analysis prior to construction. 3. Construction of a three foot thick clay liner. 4. Field observation and testing of the clay liner. 5. Documentation of construction means and methods, testing, and sampling. 2.1.1 Pre-Construction Appropriate construction equipment to be used for the test fill will be proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Construction Engineer. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 12 The test fill construction will be performed under the supervision of the Construction Engineer with assistance from the Soils Testing Laboratory in order to evaluate the clay soil placement procedures,test methods, and clay liner performance. Test fill construction will be conducted during warmer weather so that construction will not have to contend with frozen soils. The Construction Engineer, Soils Testing Laboratory and Contractor will meet prior to the start of the test fill construction to review the plans,specifications, and requirements of this CQAQCP. 2.1.2 Materials of Construction The test fill components (from bottom to top) consist of a natural foundation soil or bedrock overlain by the three foot clay liner. The clay soil materials to be used for con- struction of the test fill will be taken from excavations within the proposed landfill con- struction footprint, and will be approved by the Construction Engineer. These on-site se- lect clay soils generally consist of a slightly sandy clay, clay, and excavated claystone bedrock all of which have a USCS classification of CL. Remolded hydraulic conductivities ranged from 1x10-8 to 2x10-8 cm/sec for samples of these materials collected at the site. 2.1.3 Surveying Requirements Surveying throughout the Test Fill Program construction and operation will be performed according to the requirements of Section 3.1. 2.1.4 Field Testing Requirements During construction of the clay liner, nuclear moisture/density gauge tests will be con- ducted at a minimum of one for every 2,000 ft2 of liner area for each lap of the compaction equipment over a loose layer of clay. The thickness of loose soil layers will be less than or equal to 0.8 feet. A lap consists of two passes, one in each of two opposing directions over the fill. Nuclear density gauge testing will continue after every lap of compaction equipment until the required moisture/density specifications have been achieved on the c 4 <<fri,i `4 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 13 loose layer prior to placing subsequent layers. Three, 1-foot lifts will be constructed in this manner. A curve will be developed showing in-place dry density versus number of compactor passes for each layer thickness. These moisture and density tests will document that the means and methods established during construction of the test fill can consistently achieve the required moisture/density specifications. A minimum of one sample will be collected for laboratory analysis of moisture density re- lations and hydraulic conductivity from each 4,000 ft2 of area for each one foot lift. 2.1.5 Laboratory Testing Requirements There are three aspects of the soils testing program to be performed by the Soils Testing Laboratory during the Test fill construction: 1. Testing of the clay liner soils prior to placement 2. Moisture/Density testing of Shelby tube samples to compare with field nuclear density gauge tests. 3. Hydraulic conductivity testing of the recompacted clay liner from "undisturbed" Shelby tube clay samples. The Soils Testing Laboratory or Construction Engineer will collect samples for laboratory testing to be used prior to and during construction. Laboratory testing will include the tests presented in Table 1 at the stated frequencies. These test results will be used to assess how the clay soil will perform as a low permeability liner. ca f,r^47 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 14 Table 1 Laboratory Testing for the Test Fill at the E.R.D. Landfill Method Fre uenc Test 1 for each soil source prior td. Proctor ASTM D-698 to construction Atterberg Limits ASTM D-4318 1/proctor Grain Size Analyses ASTM D-422 1/proctor Unified Soil Class. ASTM D-2487 1/proctor Natural Moisture Content ASTM D-2216 1/proctor and Shelby Moisture/Density(Shelby) ASTM D-2216 1/4000 ft2 of liner/lift Hydraulic Conductivity EPA SW-925 1/4000 ft2 of liner/lift (Shelby tube samples) 2.1.6 Placement Specifications The base of the test fill will be approximately 150 feet long by 80 feet wide and will have 4:1 side slopes. The existing ground within the limits of the test fill area will be cleared and grubbed of all roots, debris, vegetation, and any other material. Following cleaning and grubbing, topsoil will be stripped from the area. Proof-rolling with heavy equipment will be performed during construction to identify any areas of instability. The Construction Engineer or his representative, will observe the foundation soil surface to insure that there is no excessive moisture, unacceptable material, or other irregularities. The Construction Engineer or his representative will observe and monitor the select clay soils being excavated and placed with emphasis on segregation and removal of unsuitable material; changes in color, texture, and moisture content; removal of rocks, cobbles, stumps, and roots; and removal of structurally weak materials (i.e., organics). The clay selected for this test fill will be of the on-site soils to be used in the E.R.D. Landfill con- struction. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 15 The Construction Engineer or the Soils Testing Laboratory, as directed by the Construction Engineer,will closely observe and document the construction procedures during the place- ment of all lifts of test fill material with particular emphasis on the thickness of the loose layers, the physical properties of the test fill soils, the construction surface under com- paction equipment (water content, equipment penetration, pumping, cracking, etc.), and number of compaction passes needed to achieve the required density (compaction effort). For each of the lifts, the Soils Testing Laboratory will document that the means and meth- ods established can consistently achieve the required moisture/density and hydraulic con- ductivity specifications. The following procedures will be used during the construction of each lift: 1. Soil moisture content will be maintained between± 2 percent of optimum mois- ture content for all lifts used in constructing the clay liner, at or exceeding 95 percent of the Standard Proctor density 2. The lifts will be compacted with passes in each direction using the Contractor's proposed compaction equipment. 3. Testing, as described in Section 2.1.4, will be performed between passes. 4. Steps 1 and 2 will be repeated until the density requirements are met. 5. The top of the lifts constructed on different days will be slightly scarified in ordeapproved by the Construction lifts. inspected on Eng neer prior to pl e acing the other and lifts. will 6. The means and methods to be used for compacting and testing the later be those that have been tested and proven effective during the compactiontof the previous lifts. 2.1.7 Deficiencies and Corrective Actions If a deficiency is discovered in the construction work, the Construction Engineer will im- mediately determine the extent and nature of the defect by additional testing, observation, review of data,or other appropriate means. The Construction Engineer will then notify the Contractor of the defect, and the Contractor will perform the necessary actions to correct the problem. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 16 The Soils Testing Laboratory will then retest the area to document that the defect has been satisfactorily corrected before any additional work can be performed in the area of defi- ciency. 2.2 WELL AND EXPLORATORY BORING ABANDONMENT PROCEDURES This section of the CQAQCP deals with selected exploratory borings drilled during evalua- tion for the Landfill Design. Operations, and Closure Plan which have not been abandoned and any well casings identified during construction or pre-construction operations at the site. The Construction Engineer will be responsible for overseeing the boring and well abandonment operations. Borings which were drilled during evaluations of the site for this submittal, and which re- quire abandonment, include 7, 7a, 13, 27, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 42 through 52. One addi- tional well(referred to hereafter as AW-1)has been identified within the landfill area at the coordinates 7,916.25 northing and 11,696.69 easting based on the coordinate system established during preparation of the base maps for the Landfill Design. Operations, and Closure Plan. This well will also be abandoned. The numbered borings above will be abandoned by drilling each boring out to its complete depth followed by grouting it to the surface with neat cement/bentonite grout (3 to 6% bentonite). Well AW-1 will be sealed to the surface from a minimum depth of 50 feet be- low the proposed base grade of the landfill and no less than 15 feet below the steel casing with neat cement/bentonite grout. The depth of casing shall be verified by the Contractor during drilling out the well or by using down-hole caliper logging techniques. Any other wells or exploratory borings discovered during the excavation of the landfill will be staked and abandoned in the same manner described for AW-1 above. The Construction Engineer will observe and document all well and exploratory boring abandonment including the dates of abandonment, methods used, volumes of grout used, drilling conditions, and any problems encountered. Appropriate abandonment forms will be submitted, by the Construction Engineer, to the Colorado Division of Water Resources in accordance with Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Waterwell Construction and Pump Installation Regulations, as amended. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 17 3.0 EARTHEN MATERIALS This part of the CQAQCP describes the earthen materials used in constructing the E.R.D. Landfill facility and surveying requirements for documentation of proper grades and fill thicknesses (Section 3.1). The earthen materials include low permeability soils (Section 3.2.) and granular soils, which include sand and sand/gravel (Section 3.3). 3.1 SURVEYING REQUIREMENTS Vertical and horizontal control will be established by the Construction Engineer using exist- ing control monuments. Grade staking will be performed by surveyors under the supervi- sion of the Construction Engineer to establish required elevations for the excavation base. The horizontal location of "break-points" between slopes and base will be documented on an approximate 100-foot grid and will be±0.5-foot horizontal tolerance. Vertical elevations of the excavation base grades will be established to a tolerance of± 0.1 foot as measured by appropriate surveying methods by the Construction Engineer. The Construction Engineer will document final excavation elevations, top of liner eleva- tions, top of liner cover elevations (sand/gravel drainage layer), and final cover elevations by survey using previously established vertical control. Vertical elevations will be docu- mented on an approximate 100-foot grid pattern and read to the nearest 0.01-foot to verify that grades are substantially within the 0.1-foot tolerance. The Construction Engineer will document final berm elevations by survey level measure- ments according to the above provisions for every 100 feet along the berm wall. The Construction Engineer will survey the completed floor liner to document proper lines and grades in accordance with this section. The thickness of the compacted soil liner will not be less than three feet as measured normal to the side-slope surface. The clay liner sur- face elevations will be checked on a 100-foot grid, and the top and toe of slopes will be surveyed every 100 feet of slope length, and used with survey data collected before liner placement for determination of clay liner thicknesses on the slopes. Any location deter- mined to have less than the required liner thickness will be reported immediately to the Construction Engineer. e* n rill Cr 8912-04 OA 7/30/90 Page 18 The Construction Engineer will survey, in accordance with this section, the completed low permeability final cover(3.0 feet general, 4.5 feet over benches on outer slopes) to verify the proper thickness. Thickness shall be measured normal to the slope. The final landfill surface shall also be surveyed in accordance with this section to verify that 1.5 feet of soil including 0.5 feet of firm, but not compacted, soil and one foot of topsoil are placed over the low permeability soil cover. 3.2 LOW PERMEABILITY SOILS This section includes the QA/QC requirements for placement, backfilling, and compaction of low permeability soils used for constructing the landfill modules at the E.R.D. facility. Low permeability soils will be select clay soils from excavation within the landfill area. Low-permeability soils will be used for the following: 1. Constructing the test fill. 2. Backfilling the low area at the south end of Module B as shown on Plate 5. 3. Constructing the floor liner and leachate sump liners. 4. Constructing liner berms 1 and 2(refer to Plate 5). 5. Backfilling Community Ditch in Module G. 6. Constructing the final cover for the landfill module. Results of the Test Fill Program may require that modifications be made to this section of the CQAQCP. After completion of the Test Fill Program, the Construction Engineer, and the Soils Testing Laboratory will meet to determine if revisions to the plans, specifications, and/or the CQAQCP should be made. Any field tests, soil sample types, and survey measurements will be recorded in daily re- ports by the Construction Engineer or his representative including locations (by coordi- nates) and elevations of all field tests and laboratory sample points. 3.2.1 Pre-construction Low-permeability soil placement will be performed in accordance with the construction plans and specifications. The Soils Testing Laboratory or Construction Engineer shall be on site at all times during backfilling and/or recompacting operations to observe and docu- a ?. . ' :` 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 19 ment the activities of the Contractor,and to document compliance with the project plans and specifications, and with this CQAQCP. 3.2.2 Materials of Construction The foundation for the E.R.D. Landfill will consist of natural soils or bedrock excavated to design grades. The existing in-place material at excavation grade elevations is generally claystone, and less frequently, sandstone bedrock, both of which possess suitable proper- ties to provide a structurally stable foundation for the overlying facility components. Clay soils used for construction of the required clay material components will be taken from on-site stockpile or directly from excavation areas for subsequent landfill construc- tion. All clay soils used will be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of standard proctor density (ASTM D-698). All clay soils used in floor liner or liner berm construction shall also meet the required compacted permeability specification of≤ 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. 3.2.3 Field Testing Requirements The following field testing methods will be used by the Soils Testing Laboratory or his rep- resentative during construction: Parameter Method Moisture Content ASTM D-3017 Soil Density ASTM D-2922 Method B A nuclear moisture/density gauge shall be used for field moisture/density determination. Test frequencies for performing field moisture/density tests on clay fill for foundation soils, liner, and berm construction shall be a minimum of one field moisture/density test per 1,000 cubic yards placed. A minimum of one field moisture/density content test per lift, and at least one test per day shall be performed. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 20 3.2.4 Laboratory Testing Requirements Routine laboratory testing of the low permeability soils will be performed on samples from the clay borrow and on the in-place clay soils collected by Soils Testing Laboratory and de- livered to the Soils Testing Laboratory. Unless stated otherwise, Shelby tube samples will be collected according to the provisions of ASTM D-1587. Table 2 presents laboratory test types, methods, and frequencies for low permeability clay fill at the E.R.D. Landfill. Table 2 Laboratory Testing for the Clay Fill at the E.R.D. Landfill Test Method Frequency Standard Proctor ASTM D-698 1 for each soil source and 1 per 5,000 yds3 Atterberg Limits ASTM D-4318 1/proctor Grain Size Analyses ASTM D-422 1/proctor Unified Soil Class. ASTM D-2487 1/proctor Natural Moisture Content ASTM D-2216 1/proctor and Shelby Moisture/Density(Shelby) ASTM D-2216 1/10,000 yds3 of liner Hydraulic Conductivity EPA SW-925 1/proctor value proctor Hydraulic Conductivity EPA SW-925 1/10,000 yds3 of liner (Shelby tube samples) In addition, samples of the clay soil shall be collected by the Soils Testing Laboratory whenever physical appearance or other changes are noticeable. These samples will be submitted to the Soils Testing Laboratory for the above testing. 3.2.5 Soils Acceptance Criteria The following acceptance criteria will apply to low permeability soil with any of the landfill systems for the E.R.D. Landfill: ed to a mum of ercent of the 1. Low-permeabilit soils w be Standard Proctor ma imum dry density tand will be within 5 within ± 2pe cent of opti- mum moisture content. eIr fri4-1 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 21 2. Any soil classification, performed on clay samples which are not CL by the Unified Soil Classification system, will be reported immediately to the Construction Engineer. 3 A laboratory ordetermination of ta conductivity Engineergreater that 1x10 7 cm/sec will be repted immediately tohe Construction 3.2.6 Placement Requirements The Soils Testing Laboratory or Construction Engineer will observe the soils being exca- vated and placed, with emphasis being placed on segregation and removal of unsuitable material; changes in color, texture,or moisture content; removal of rocks,cobbles, stumps, and roots; and removal of structurally weak material (i.e., organics). Boulders, cobbles, roots, and other foreign objects will be removed by the Contractor to eliminate potential liner penetrations and irregularities. Field densities and moistures will be measured in areas where low-permeability clay soil has been used in order to document that the in-place soil is in substantial conformance with the required specifications This testing will document that the soil has been placed and compacted as a uniform, homogeneous clay mss. Any backfilling and/or placement of low-permeability soils will be accomplished in accor- dance with the following requirements: 1. The Soils Testing Laboratory or Construction Engineer will confirm the source and uniformity of the clay material to be used. Observed stones greater than two inches in diameter will be removed from this material. 2. No frozen soils will be used for backfilling. Any frozen soils in the compaction work area will be removed. 3. Loose thickness of layers for clay compaction will not exceed 0.8 feet 4. Clay compaction will be performed so as to accomplish continuous and com- plete keying together of all soil construction joints on module bottoms and side-ction work so as to ils preventthe creation of vor erncaluconstru lion joints) observe n the com- pacted clay. 5. Clay soils will be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent Standard Proctor density and ±2 percent of optimum moisture content. el , 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 22 6. Unacceptable compaction density or moisture content will be reported immedi- ately to the Contractor by the Soils Testing Laboratory. Corrective action will consist of moisture-conditioning of the soil and/or additional compactive effort as necessary. 3.2.7 Excavation Base Requirements Excavations shall be observed by the Construction Engineer prior to liner or clay fill con- struction. The Construction Engineer will document all excavation conditions including but not limited to relative moisture, stability, 4:1 or flatter slopes, and that the base area is graded, according to the plans and specifications. Proof-rolling with heavy equipment will be performed to identify any areas of undesirable material or soft foundation soils. During construction, if sand or sandstone bedrock is encountered along the excavation base, it will be removed to one foot below the surface and replaced with low-permeability clay soils so that the final liner thickness in such areas will be four feet. Sand or granular pockets encountered along any of the side slopes will be excavated at the discretion of the Construction Engineer. Where unacceptable excavation base surface conditions exist, the surface will be re-rolled or over-excavated to remove such conditions. When over-excavated, the resulting hole will be backfilled with compacted clay soils. Backfilling will be accomplished in accordance with the field and laboratory testing provisions of Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. The completed and repaired excavation will be surveyed according to the provisions of Section 3.1 to determine that the excavation base is in accordance with the plans and speci- fications. 3.2.8 Liner Berms There are two liner berms required for the landfill area as described in the Landfil_ 1�E�• Operations, and Closure Plan. Liner Berm 1 is located at the south boundary to Module B. The purpose of this berm is to provide a barrier to off site movement of leachate via the ex- isting natural channels along the south side of the site and to facilitate drainage of leachate toward the Phase 1 Leachate Sump. Liner Berm 2 is located along the northeast landfill boundary immediately northeast of the Phase 2 Leachate Sump. The purpose of this berm is to provide drainage of leachate in this area to the leachate sump. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 23 These berms shall be constructed on bedrock. Prior to placement of clay fill for construc- tion of these berms, the alignment of the berm shall be excavated (keyed) to a minimum depth of two feet into bedrock. Clay will be placed in the excavation, and to the final ele- vations presented on Plate 5, using the same methods described in Section 3.2.6. These liner berms will be a minimum of 12 feet wide to accommodate operation of soil hauling and compacting equipment during construction. The outer slopes of the berms (slopes away from the fill area) will be finalized at 4:1. The inner slopes will be no steeper than 1:1. The floor liner adjacent to the floor berms shall be keyed together by lightly scarifying the liner berm at the location of intersection with the floor liner immediately prior to floor liner construction. 3.2.9 Floor Liner The method of liner placement and liner compaction will be determined during construction of the test fill; however, in no case will the loose clay layer thicknesses exceed 0.8 feet prior to compaction. Equipment will not work in an area closer than two feet to any geosynthetic components within the leachate sumps. The final thickness of the floor liner shall be a minimum of three feet except in areas where sandstone or non-indurated sediments form the base of the excavation and in the leachate sumps. The floor liner thickness shall be a minimum of four feet in these areas. Floor liner thicknesses and proper grades shall be verified by surveying as described in Section 3.1. The liner for each successive fill area within a module and between modules shall be keyed together to provide a continuous liner across the landfill floor and sidewalls. A minimum of 50 feet of liner shall be constructed ahead of the lower landfill cell in each working area as illustrated in Figure 9 of the Landfill Design. Operations. and Closure Plan. The one foot gravel drainage layer on top of the liner shall extend a minimum of 10 feet ahead of the lower landfill cell. The remainder of the constructed liner shall be covered with a minimum of 1 foot of loose soil to prevent desiccation. This liner construction will require that the base grade of the landfill excavation be completed to a minimum of 75 feet ahead of refuse filling operations at all times. Keying of subsequent liner sections together will be ac- complished by removing the soil liner cover and one foot of liner thickness off of the pre- vious liner and replacing it with new soil liner during ongoing liner construction. After the e Fur, 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 24 one foot of clay has been removed from the existing liner section, the exposed liner will be inspected for signs of desiccation and repaired as necessary The Contractor will, if neces- sary,moisture-condition surfaces to receive clay fill either by addition of water and scarifi- cation where desiccated,or by discing to reduce water content, thus further minimizing the possibility of creation of horizontal joints in the compacted clay liner. The final surface of the floor liner shall be smoothed by compaction with a flat wheel drum compactor, prior to placement of the drainage layer, in order to provide a free draining sur- face. 3.2.10 Final Cover Low-permeability final cover soil placement will at a minimum be conducted in confor- mance with the requirements of the Landfill De '^^ Operations and C losure Plan. The Plan stipulates that a minimum of five passes be made with a sheepsfoot compactor on each loose layer with the soil at ± 2 percent of optimum moisture. Final compaction specifica- tions will be based on the results of the test fill; however, in the event of any conflicts be- tween requirements set forth in this document and the lfill Desi L ^^ Onerations. and Closure Plan,the more restrictive requirement will supersede. Proper placement of final soil cover will be observed and documented by the Soils Testing Laboratory and/or the Construction Engineer. The final cover will be a minimum thickness of 4.5 feet measured normal to the slope in- cluding the 1.5 feet rooting zone soil and topsoil on top of the 3.0 feet of low permeability clay cover. The thickness of both final cover types shall be verified by surveying as speci- fied in Section 3.1. 3.2.11 Deficiencies and Resolution If a deficiency is discovered in the construction work, the Construction Engineer along with the Soils Testing Laboratory will determine the extent and nature of the defect by ad- ditional testing,observation, review of data, or other appropriate means and will direct the Contractor to perform the necessary corrective tasks. The Soils Testing Laboratory will retest the previously defected area as appropriate to document the success of corrective ac- tion. el '1 $ 7 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 25 3.2.12 Documentation Report Upon completion of the low permeable soil component of the landfill construction the QC/QA documentation will be gathered, organized, summarized, and presented as a docu- mentation report to be included in an overall documentation report as discussed in Section 1.4.4. This report will contain a summary of the following items: 1. Field moisture and density measurements 2. Laboratory soil tests. 3. Field Survey measurements. 4. Daily reports. 5. Short summary narrative which describes the construction process of this com- ponent. 3.3. GRANULAR SOILS There are two types of granular soil materials specified for construction of the E.R.D. Landfill including C-33 sand for protection of the sump liner system and minus 3/8 inch sand/gravel for construction of the leachate sump backfill and drainage layer over the floor liner. Any field tests, laboratory test results, and survey results, including locations (by coordi- nates) and elevations of all field tests, and laboratory sample points, will be recorder, ny the Construction Engineer. 3.3.1 Pre-Construction Granular soil placement will be performed in accordance with the construction plans and specifications. The Soils Testing Laboratory or Construction Engineer will be on site at all times during placement and grading operations to observe and document the activities of the Contractor, and to document compliance with the project plans and specifications, and with this CQAQCE 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 26 The granular soils will be imported from a sand and gravel supplier. Samples of the granu- lar soils will be collected from the supplier for laboratory testing to make certain that they meet the material specifications stated in Section 3.3.2. In addition observations will be made to insure that the media is clean, inorganic, and does not contain foreign material. 3.3.2 Materials of Construction The minus 3/8 inch sand/gravel soils will be poorly graded, and have less than or equal to three percent passing a number 200 sieve, and be made up of inert stable materials such as silica and quartz. The sand will have a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-2 cm/sec. The C-33 sand will have the gradation limits specified in Table 3 Table 3 Gradation limits for C-33 Sand Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 100 No. 8 75-100 No. 16 50-85 No. 30 25-60 No. 50 10-30 No. 100 2-10 No. 200 4 or less 3.3.3 Testing Requirements No field tests of granular soils will be required for placement in any of the landfill systems. Routine laboratory testing of the granular soils will be performed during pre-construction as described in Section 3.3.2 and during construction on samples collected by Soils Testing Laboratory. One sample will be collected for grain size analysis for every 2,500 cubic yards of each granular soil placed. Unless stated otherwise, bucket samples (0.5 ft3 mini- mum)will be collected. e c 1^$ 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 27 A grain-size analysis (sieve) will be performed on each sample collected according to the provisions of ASTM D-42. The results of the grain-size analysis will be sent to the Construction Engineer who will determine if the particle size analysis meets the necessary specifications for each material. 3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for the granular soils are the material specifications, based on parti- cle size, as stated in Section 3.3.2. Material that does not meet the required specifications will be rejected. 3.3.5 Placement Criteria The following placement criteria will be used by the Contractor in installing landfill systems involving granular soil materials. The Construction Engineer will observe and document that each of the procedures have been performed according to the criteria listed in this sec- tion and the plans and specifications. 1. One foot thickness of C-33 sand will be placed on top of the geotextile in both leachate sumps. During placement, at least 12 inches of sand shall be maintained between the earth-moving equipment and the geotextile. 2. One foot thickness of minus 3/8 inch sand/gravel will be placed over the floor liner and in the leachate sumps on top of the C-33 sand. 3. The Construction Engineer will observe the spreading and grading of the C-33 sand and -3/8 inch sand/gravel and document sand consistency and the presence of foreign materials. This observation will also be done to quickly detect potential and actual damage to the geotextile and geomembrane upon which the sand is being placed. Where damage is suspected, the geomembrane surface will be exposed and observed to determine its condition. Actual damage will be fully documented as well as corrective action taken according to the repair procedures of Section 4.1.6. 3.3.6 Deficiencies and Resolutions If a deficiency is discovered in the construction work, the Soils Testing Laboratory will immediately determine the extent and nature of the defect by additional testing, observation, review of data, or other appropriate means and will then notify the Contractor and the Construction Engineer of the defect. The Contractor will perform the necessary corrective tasks. The Soils Testing Laboratory will then re-observe the area, to document that the de- 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 28 fect has been satisfactorily corrected, before any additional work will be performed in the area of deficiency. 3.3.7 Post Construction The Construction Engineer will document final sand drainage layer elevations and /or thicknesses for the primary liner and final cover systems according to the requirements set forth in Section 3.1. Observations will also be made for all other granular soil installation described in this section at the time the work has been completed. Upon completion of the installation and testing of the granular soils, the documentation in- formation will be gathered , organized, summarized, and presented for inclusion in the Final Construction Documentation Report described in Section 1.4.4. The report will in- clude: 1. Short narrative summary which describes the construction process of this com- ponent. 2. Field Survey Measurements. 3. Soil Testing Results. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 29 4.0 GEOSYNTHETICS This section of the CQAQC Plan applies to geosynthetics used in the construction of the leachate collection sumps. There are two leachate sumps proposed for the E.R.D. Landfill; one for each of the two phases of the landfill. Refer to the design specifications presented on Plate 7 of the Landfill Design, Operations, and Closure Plan for the Proposed E.R.D. Land ill. The geosynthetic components of the leachate sumps include a 60 mil high density polyethylene(HDPE)membrane to be placed on top of the sump clay liner and a protective 16 ounce, nonwoven, needle-punched, polypropylene blanket to be placed over the HDPE membrane liner. 4.1 GEOMEMBRANES 4.1.1 Manufacturing The geomembrane must be fabricated from PE resin. The membrane must be classified as Type III Class C Category 4 or 5 as defined by ASTM D-1248. Prior to delivery of any geomembrane rolls to the site, the manufacturer will provide the Construction Engineer with the following information. 1. The resin supplier, supplier location, and brand name. 2. Any test results conducted by the geomembrane and/or resin manufacturer to document the quality of the resin used in membrane fabrication. 3. The quality control plan that the membrane manufacturer will be using for the membrane being supplied. Every roll of geomembrane for delivery to the site must be manufactured and inspected by the manufacturer according to the following requirements: 1. The PE resin shall contain no more than 2 percent recycled polymer by weight as determined by Thermo Gravimetric Analysis. Recycled polymer shall be limited to the material generated within the geomembrane manufacturer's plant and from the same grade and type as defined in this document. 2. The membrane must contain no more than a maximum of one percent by weight additives, fillers, or extenders, excluding carbon black. 3. The membrane must have no striations, roughness, pinholes, or bubbles on the surface. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 30 4. The membrane must be free of holes, blisters, undispersed raw materials, or any other sign of contamination by foreign matter. The membrane manufacturer will perform the following tests on every 50,000 pounds of resin received,or fraction thereof, and will report the results to the Construction Engineer: 1. carbon black content by ASTM D-1603 2. carbon black dispersion by ASTM D-792 Method A 3. melt flow index by ASTM D-1238 with a load of 2.16 kg at 190°C 4. moisture content by any approved method. The Membrane Manufacturer will provide certification based on tests performed by the Manufacturer's laboratory or other outside laboratory contracted by the Manufacturer, that the membrane supplied under this plan will meet the following specifications: 1. Geomembrane will meet the following specifications for resistance to soil burial criteria according to ASTM D-3083, as modified by Appendix A of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54 Titled Flexible Membrane Liners: Property Maximum%Change Tensile strength at yield 10 Tensile Strength at break 10 Elongation at yield 10 Elongation at break 10 Modulus of elasticity 10 2. Geomembrane will meet a -40°F maximum temperature for low temperature brittleness as determined by ASTM D-746 Procedure B. 4.1.2 Delivery, Handling, and Storage of Geomembrane Rolls Transportation of the geomembrane rolls to the job site is the responsibility of the mem- brane Manufacturer. All onsite handling is the responsibility of the installer. The ge- omembrane will be protected during shipment from excessive heat or cold, puncture, cut- ting or other damaging or deleterious conditions. The membrane rolls will be stored on site in a manner which prevents long-term ultraviolet exposure, prior to installation within the leachate sumps. (T 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 31 The Construction Engineer will be responsible throughout pre-construction, construction and post construction periods for observing and documenting that the installer provides ad- equate handling equipment used for moving geomembrane rolls and that the equipment for the moving of the geomembrane rolls preserves the integrity of the membrane. The Construction Engineer will be responsible for making certain that the manufacturer, type, and thickness of each roll in a shipment is correct. The Construction Engineer will also maintain a log of membrane roll deliveries throughout the membrane sump construc- tion process. This log shall include at a minimum the delivery date, the date of receipt at the site, and the roll and lot(batch) numbers. 4.1.3 Earthwork The earthwork contractor will be responsible for preparing the supporting soil liner accord- ing to the plans and specifications provided in Section 3.0 of this plan. The installer will certify in writing that the surface on which the membrane will be placed is acceptable. This certification of acceptance will be given by the installer to the Construction Engineer prior to the start of membrane installation in each sump. After the supporting soil liner has been accepted by the installer, it will be the installer's re- sponsibility to report to the Construction Engineer any change in the soil conditions that may require repair work. Special care must be taken to insure that the soil surface does not become softened by precipitation or cracked by desiccation. The soil surface will be exam- ined daily by the Installer to evaluate these possible conditions. These observations shall be documented in writing. 4.1.4 Placement A panel layout drawing will be prepared by the installer, prior to installation of the mem- branes. This layout will be submitted to the Construction Engineer. Membrane placement will not be conducted at ambient temperatures below 40°F. Membrane placement will not be conducted during precipitation or during fog, in ponded water, or during excessive winds. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 32 The Construction Engineer will document the following: 1. Equipment used does not damage the membrane by handling, heat, leakage of hydrocarbons, or by other means. 2. The prepared soil surface for the membrane has not deteriorated since previous acceptance. 3. Personnel working on membranes do not smoke, wear damaging clothing, or engage in activities which would damage the membrane. 4. The method of unrolling the membrane does not cause scratches or crimps in the membrane and does not damage the supporting soil liner. 5. The method used to place the rolls minimizes wrinkles. 6. Adequate means are used to prevent uplift by wind while preventing damage to the membrane or supporting soil liner. 7. Direct contact with the membrane will be minimized. The membrane will be protected by geotextiles or extra membrane in areas where excessive traffic is anticipated. 4.1.5 Damages The Construction Engineer will examine each roll for damage after placement but prior to seaming and will determine which rolls or portions of rolls should be rejected, repaired or accepted. Damaged or repaired rolls or portions of rolls which have been rejected will be marked, and their removal from the site will be recorded by the Construction Engineer. 4.1.6 Defects and Repairs This section applies to all defects and repairs from examinations, tests, or visual observa- tions performed on the geomembrane material and on seams used in joining rolls in the field. All seam and non-seam areas of the geomembranes will be examined and documented by the Construction Engineer for identification of defects, holes, blisters, undispersed raw materials, large wrinkles, and any signs of contamination by foreign matter. The surface of the membrane will be clean at the time of examination. M r: 4 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 33 Each location which fails examination will be marked by the Construction Engineer and re- paired by the Installer. Work will not proceed in any area where defects are identified until suitable repairs are made. Several procedures exist for the repair of flawed areas. The final decision as to the appro- priate repair procedure will be agreed upon between the Installer, and the Construction Engineer prior to commencement of work. The following procedures are available: 1. Patchinv- used to repair large holes, tears, undispersed raw materials, and con- tamination by foreign matter. 2. Grinding and Rewelding-used to repair small sections of extruded seams. 3. Spot Welding or Seaming- used to repair small tears, pinholes, or other minor localized flaws. 4. Capping- used to repair large lengths of failed seams. 5. Topping- used to repair areas of inadequate seams which have an exposed edge. 6. Removing the Bad Seam and Replacing with a Strip of New Material Welded in Place- used for repairing large lengths of fusion seams. 7. Other- as agreed upon by the Installer, and Construction Engineer. At a minimum the following provisions will be provided for repairs: 1. Patches or caps will extend at least six inches beyond the edge of the defect, and all corners of patches will be rounded with a radius of three inches minimum. 2. The geomembrane below large caps shall be appropriately cut to avoid water or gas collection between the two sheets. Each repair will be examined, numbered, and logged by the Construction Engineer. 4.1.7 Anchor Trench System and Backfilling The geomembrane trench will be excavated to the specifications shown on Plate 7 unless otherwise specified. The anchor trench will be constructed in a "U" or "V" configuration with rounded corners. No loose soil will be allowed beneath the membrane. No more of the anchor trench shall be excavated each day than the amount of trench required for the membrane to be anchored in that day in order to minimize desiccation of the exposed soil liner and trench. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 34 The anchor trench will be backfilled with clay liner material and compacted by the Installer to the specifications shown on Plate 7. Care shall be taken to prevent any damage to the membrane during backfill of the anchor trench. The Soils Testing Laboratory will observe the backfilling and recompacting operations and will advise the Construction Engineer of the adequacy of the soil backfill. 4.1.8 Construction Field Seams This section covers quality assurance/quality control procedures for seaming rolls of ge- omembrane into a continuous liner. This plan requires 100 percent non-destructive testing of all field seams. The Installer will provide the Construction Engineer and the Construction Engineer with seam layout drawings for each of the leachate sumps showing each expected seam. The Construction Engineer will review the seam layout drawing and document that it is consis- tent with accepted practice and the design specifications. No seaming will be performed without the Construction Engineer's approval. In general seams should be oriented parallel to the line of maximum slope, so they are ori- ented along, not across, the slope. In corners and at other odd geometric intersections, the number of seams should be minimized. No horizontal seams will be allowed on the slopes. Horizontal seams in the base of the leachate sumps should be at least five feet from the toe of the slope. A seam numbering system will be agreed upon which is compatible with the geomembrane roll numbering system. Prior to seaming the seam area shall be clean, free of moisture, dust dirt, debris of any kind, and foreign material. If seam overlap grinding is required, it shall be performed ac- cording to the Manufacturer's instruction within one hour of the seaming operation and in a way that does not damage the membrane. Seams shall be aligned with the fewest possible wrinkles. �?'p '3, 4 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 35 4.1.8.1 Seaming Equipment Approved processes for field seaming are extrusion welding and fusion welding. Fusion welding application may be impractical due to the space limitations within the leachate sumps. Only apparatus which have been specifically approved shall be used. Proposed alternate processes shall be documented and submitted for approval. 4.1.8.1.1 Extrusion Process The Installer shall meet the following requirements regarding use availability and cleaning of extrusion welding equipment to be used at the site: 1. The welding apparatus will be equipped to continuously monitor temperature in the barrel and at the nozzle. 2. One spare operable seaming device will be maintained on site at all times. 3. Equipment used for seaming shall not damage the geomembrane. 4. The geomembrane shall be protected in areas of heavy traffic to prevent damage as discussed in this section. 5. The extruder will be cleaned and purged prior to beginning seaming, and at any time that seaming operations are stopped, until all heat-degraded extrudate has been removed from the barrel. 6. The electric generator for the equipment will be placed on a smooth base in such a way that no damage occurs to the geomembrane. 7. A smooth insulating plate or fabric will be placed beneath hot equipment to pro- tect the geomembrane. The Installer and, if applicable, the Manufacturer will provide documentation to the Construction Engineer regarding the quality of extrudate used in the welding apparatus. At a minimum,the extrudate should be compatible with the base of liner material and contain the same grade and quality of PE resin as used in the base material. 4.1.8.1.2 Fusion Process The fusion-welding apparatus will be automated vehicular mounted devices. The apparatus shall be equipped with gauges giving the applicable temperatures and pressures. c^ 'r").1 '90 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 36 Prior to installation of any geomembrane material, the Fabricator shall submit seaming quality control records, including ambient temperatures and applicable apparatus tempera- tures and pressures to the Construction Engineer. The Construction Engineer will document that these requirements are met by the Installer for the process selected. 4.1.8.2 Seamer Qualifications All personnel performing seaming operations will be qualified by experience or by success- fully passing seaming tests for the type of seaming equipment to be used. At least one seamer will have experience seaming a minimum of 1,000,000 ft2 of polyethylene ge- omembrane using the same type of equipment to be used on the leachate sumps. The most experienced seamer, the "master seamer, will have direct supervisory responsibility at the site over less experienced seamers. The installer shall provide documentation of the quali- fications of the seaming crew to the the Construction Engineer. 4.1.8.3 Weather Conditions During Seaming The range of weather conditions under which geomembrane seaming can be performed are as follows: 1. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Construction Engineer, no seam- ing will be attempted at ambient temperatures below 40°F or above 104°F. 2. Between ambient temperatures of 40°F and 50°F seaming will be performed only if the geomembrane is preheated by either the sun or hot air device, pro- vided there is no excessive ambient cooling resulting from wind conditions. 3. The geomembrane will be dry and protected from the wind. 4. Seaming will not be performed during any precipitation event. 5. Seaming will not be performed in areas where ponded water has collected be- neath the surface of the membrane. The Construction Engineer will document that these requirements are met by the Installer and will document the actual weather conditions during the installation. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 37 4.1.8.4 Overlapping and Temporary Bond The Construction Engineer will document the following: 1. Panels of geomembranes have a finished overlap of a minimum of three inches for extrusion welding and five inches for fusion welding. 2. No solvents or adhesives will be used on the geomembranes unless the product roval can shas been ubmitting sample 1 and data shee s to Owner. the Owner pf or testing and evaluation. be obtained by 3. Procedures used to temporarily bond adjacent geomembrane rolls do not damage the membrane. 4.1.8.5 Trial Seams Trial seams will be made on fragment pieces of membrane to document that the seaming conditions are adequate. Such trial seams will be made at the beginning of each seaming period, and at least once every four hours thereafter, for each seaming apparatus used that day. Each seamer will make at least one trial seam each day. All trial seams will be made under the same conditions as actual seams. The trial seams will first be examined for squeeze out, footprint, pressure, and general ap- pearance by the Installer. If a seam fails any of these examinations, a new trial seam will be performed until satisfactory seams are obtained. The trial seam samples will be at least three feet long by one foot wide after seaming, with the seam oriented lengthwise and with the previously described overlap. Two adjoining specimens, each one inch wide, will be cut from the trial seam sample by the Installer. The specimens will be tested in shear and peel respectively at the factory. If a specimen fails, the entire operation shall be repeated. If the additional specimen fails, the seaming apparatus or seamer shall not be accepted until corrective measures are taken and two successive trail seams are successfully completed. After completion of these tests the remaining portion of the sample may be discarded. The results of all Manufacturer test seams shall be forwarded to the Construction Engineer. cTR pp�..,,-n 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 38 4.1.8.6 General Seaming Procedures The general seaming procedures are as follows: 1. For fusion welding, a movable protective layer of plastic may be required to be placed directly below each overlap to be seamed. This should prevent any moisture buildup between the sheets to be welded. 2. A firm substrate will be provided for support of the seaming process. 3. Fishmouths or wrinkles at the seam overlaps will be cut along the ridge of the wrinkle in order to achieve a flat overlap. The cut fishmouths or wrinkles shall be seamed, and any portion where the overlap is inadequate will then be patched with an oval or patch of the same membrane, extending a minimum of six inches beyond the cut in all directions. 4. If seaming operations are to be conducted at night, adequate lighting shall be provided. 5. Seaming will extend to the outside edge of rolls to be placed in anchor trenches. 6. For all locations where seams cannot be nondestructively tested, the seams will be cap stripped with the same membrane. The Construction Engineer will ob- serve the cap stripping to document the uniformity and completeness of the work. 4.1.8.7 Nondestructive Testing Each field seam will be nondestructively tested over the full length of the seam using one of the methods described in this section. The purpose of the nondestructive testing is to de- termine the continuity of the seams. The recommended test for conducting nondestructive seam testing is the ultrasonic shadow method. This method can be used on either the ex- trusion or fusion seams. Failure of a seam test using the ultrasonic shadow method re- quires that the seam be tested using the vacuum box method described in Section 4.1.8.7.2. The air pressure method is applicable only to fusion seams. Air pressure test- ing may only be used based on concurrence by the Construction Engineer. The Construction Engineer will perform the following related to seam testing: 1. Perform or observe all nondestructive seam testing and examine all seams for squeeze-out, footprint, pressure, and general appearance. Failure of these cri- teria will be considered as failure of the seam, and repair or reconstruction will be required. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 39 2. Document location, date, test unit number, name of tester, and outcome of all testing. 3. Inform the Installer of any required repairs. 4.1.8.7.1 Ultrasonic Shadow Testing Nondestructive seam testing on straight seams will be performed using the ultrasonic shadow technique which consists of transmitting a high frequency ultrasonic signal from one side of the seam across to the second membrane sheet. The transmitted signal is mea- sured to determine the continuity of the seam. Ultrasonic shadow testing will be performed using the GRI Test Method GM 1-86, titled "Standard Practice for Seam Evaluation by Ultrasonic Shadow Method." The equipment will be equipped with an audible alarm and must be calibrated according to the provisions of the test procedure referenced above. The operator performing the ultrasonic shadow test method must have a minimum of 1,000 hours of experience utilizing the equipment and procedures covered by GM 1-86. Failed seams will be tested using the vacuum box method as described in Section 4.1.8.7.2. No seam which fails the ultrasonic shadow test will be marked for repair unless it has also failed the vacuum box test. 4.1.8.7.2 Vacuum Box Test Vacuum box testing is to be used only on those seam locations failing the ultrasonic shadow method or to locate precisely the leaks identified from the air pressure testing. Vacuum box testing equipment will meet the following minimum standards: 1. A five-sided vacuum box with an open bottom, a clear viewing panel top, and a pliable gasket attached to the bottom. 2. A steel vacuum tank and pump assembly equipped with the pressure controller and pipe connections capable of achieving a vacuum of 26 psig. 3. A vacuum gauge on the tank with an operating range of 0 to 26 inches of vac- uum and a vacuum gauge on the vacuum box with an operating range of vac- uum pressures from 0 to 10 psig. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 40 The vacuum box test will be performed according to the following procedure: 1. Seams to be tested should be clean and relatively free from soil or foreign ob- jects which could prohibit a good seal from being formed between the vacuum chamber and the geomembrane. 2. Energize the vacuum pump and reduce the tank pressure to approximately 24 psig vacuum. 3. Wet a strip of geomembrane along the seam approximately twice the size of the vacuum box with the soapy solution. 4. Place and center the vacuum box with the gasket in contact with the geomem- brane surface over the wetted area of the seam. 5. Applying a normal force to the top of the vacuum box, close the bleed valve and open the vacuum valve. Check to make certain that tight seal is created between the geomebrane and the vacuum box. A minimum vacuum of five psi should be used for testing with the maximum allowable testing pressure never exceed- ing 10 psig vacuum. 6. With the vacuum drawn examine the membrane seam fro bubbles resulting from the flow of air through the seam through the viewing port for a duration of not less than 30 seconds. 7. Remove the vacuum box by first closing the vacuum valve and opening the bleed valve. If bubbles appear in Step 6, mark the area for repair according to the provisions of Section 4.1.6. 8. Move the vacuum box along the seam to be tested overlapping the previously tested area by no less than three inches. 4.1.8.7.3 Air Pressure Testing The following test procedures are applicable only to fusion seams. The equipment for per- forming the test shall have the following minimum requirements: 1. An air compressor equipped with a pressure gauge and regulator capable of pro- ducing and sustaining a pressure between 25 and 30 psig and mounted on a cushion to protect the membrane surface. 2 nttings, rubber hose,r other approved es, etc., too rate the equipment and a sharp hollow pressure. The testing using this method will be performed using the following procedure: 1. Seal both ends of the seam to be tested. 8912-04 QA 7/30/90 Page 41 2. Insert needle or other approved pressure feed device into the air space between the seams. 3. Energize the air compressor to a pressure of 25 to 30 psig. Close the valve and sustain the pressure for approximately five minutes. 4. If after five minutes, pressure loss exceeds two psig, or if the pressure does not stabilize within the five minute period, the seam fails and the leak must be de- tected using the vacuum box method described in Section 4.1.8.7.2. 5. If pressure loss does not exceed two psig, proceed to the next seam for seam testing. 4.2 GEOTEXTQ,E LINER COVER 4.2.1 Manufacturing The geotextile used for cover of the liner in the leachate sumps shall be manufactured from polypropylene resin. The geotextile will be supplied to the site in factory rolls. The mini- mum requirements for the geotextile are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Required Properties for Geotextile Liner Cover Property Units Value Test Thickness mils 200 D-1777, 4 psf Mass/Unit Area oz/yd2 16 ASTM D-1910 Apparent Opening in 04 ASTM D-35 Size lb 270 ASTM 1682, Grab Strength Method 16 using CRE and 1" jaws 75 ASTM D-117, Trapezoidal Tear lb Method 14 75 Modified ASTM 751 Puncture Strength lb with flat tip 5/16" probe 430 ASTM D-3736, Burst Strength psi Method 4 Hello