VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY REPORT ON THE · The Value Engineering study was started during the initial VE working conference conducted at the Omaha District during February 7th through

u-'UUO

Value Engineering Study___ Sponsored By

US Army Corps U.S. Army Engineer District, Omahaof Engineers

VALUE ENGINEERINGSTUDY REPORT

ON THEFULTZ LANDFILLSUPERFUND SITE

BYESVILLE, OHIO

Office, Chief of EngineersValue Engineering Study Team

0 VESTMarch 1994

VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY REPORT

POD SERVICE: USAGE VALUE ENGINEERING OFFICER: Steven Moore

Value Engineering Team Study Report On The

FULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

BYESVILLE, OHIO

MARCH 1994

SBRING STUDY TEAM fr̂ P HYl

OVEST / U. S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 889, Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889

VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY TEAM LEADER:

Fred McAuley, Telephone: 912-652-5715

VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM MEMBERS;

NAME

Fred McAuleyRonald LanierCharles ClaghornCarl CanicattiSteven MooreKurk InglebartMike SteffensmeierDonald MosesRobert SaariGreg MellemaLarry BoardmanThomas BloomRaj Rajaram

DISCIPLINE

General Engineer/OVESTCivil Engineer/OVESTCivil Engineer/OVESTGeneral Engineer/OVESTCivil Engineer/CEMROPM/CEMROTechnical PM/CEMROGeotechnical/CEMROEnvironmental/CEMROGeotechnical/CEMROGeotechnical/CEMRORPM, EPA - Region 5PRC Environmental Management

TELEPHONE NUMBER

912-912-912-912-402-402-402-402-402-402-402-312-708-

•652-652-652-652-221-221-221-221-221-221-221-886-225-

5715544951735172392978307163317744244707470619674166

VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table of Contents ....................... 2

Project Description and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Proposals:

Proposal No. 1 - Revise Landfill Cap Design Using aComposite Geotextile Fabric and Drainage Net/Geomembrane/Geocomposite Clay Liner ........... 8

Proposal No. 2 - Eliminate Northeast and Northwest RetainingWall Systems and Slope Toe to Grade .......... 14

Proposal No. 3 - Eliminate Northeast and Northwest RetainingWall Systems and Use a Gabion Retaining Wall ...... 19

Proposal No. 4 - Use Two Separate Storage Tanks for Leachateand Shallow Aquifer Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Proposal No. 5 - Modify Gas Collection Extraction System 28

VE Study Team Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Supporting Documents:

Contact Directory — VE Team List

F.A.S.T. Diagram

Cost Models — Total Project and Landfill Cover

Speculation List

Appendix A — Composite Geotextile FabricDrainage Net Data

Appendix B — Underwater Silicate Grout Mix Data


PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

PROJECT TITLE; FULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITEPROJECT LOCATION: Byesville, Ohio

The Fultz Landfill Site Record of Decision was issued by theEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region V, in September 1991. TheSelected Remedy, chosen in compliance with the CERCLA-1980 andSARA-1986, was concurred with by the Ohio EPA. A description ofmajor components of the Selected Remedy follows:

Institutional controls to reduce exposure to contaminantsthrough legal restrictions.

Site fence to reduce direct exposure to contamination.

Alternate water supply for downgradient wells ifunacceptable risk is attributed to site.

Long term monitoring of air, surface and ground water,leachate and sediments.

Subsurface structural supports for mine voids to preventcap damage and reduce bedrock fracturing between landfilland deep aquifer.

Surface water and sediment controls

Berm and multi-layer cap to reduce infiltration, preventerosion, and reduce risk from direct contact withcontaminates.

Leachate collection system (2-gallons per minute).

Extraction well system intercepting contaminated ground-water in shallow aquifer migrating into deep coal mineaquifer.

On-site water treatment to economically treat 6 milliongallons of contaminated groundwater annually and leachateseepage.

Discharge treated water to surface with NPDES permit.

Wetland replacement plan to restore ponds and habitatdisturbed by remedial action.

The plan is intended to reduce risk to the public by directcontact and by exposure to contaminated water sources at anestimated present worth cost over 30-year life of $19,480,700(based on $15,759,700 first cost and $218,000 O&M cost at a 5%interest rate).


PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND (Continued)

Figure 1 is provided to give a relationship with the site andnearby Byesville, Ohio.

The Fultz Landfill Superfund Project's Preliminary RemedialDesign Draft Report defines the conceptual level work featuresrequired to remedy contaminated ground and surface water at the 30-acre landfill site in Byesville, Ohio. The major components of theproject consists of the following items: (1) A multi-layerResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C-compliantlandfill cap (modified), (2) Stabilization of the mine voidsunderlying the southern portion of the site (cap designed forsubsidence), and (3) A gas venting system, leachate and


PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND (Continued)

groundwater extraction and treatment system (treatment requirementwill be determined by monitoring of stored groundwater and leachateseepage. If required, treatment will occur at existing municipalfacility (by hauling or piping contaminants). The results of theContract Labratory Program's (CLP's) analysis of groundwatercontaminate levels which will define treatment requirements will beavailable during February 1994. The Remedial Design (RD) plan alsoprovides fencing/ placing deed restrictions and monitoring toensure the remedy is effective. The preliminary capital cost isestimated at $8.2 million.

The Preliminary RD has made some significant redefinement ofproject features while maintaining technical compliance with theROD. The VE Team has provided comments concerning the refinementsin the Preliminary RD which are intended to lend support toeffectively addressed design evolutions. The reader is encouragedto review these comments which follow the VE study proposalrecommendations.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT TITLE: FULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITEPROJECT LOCATION: Byesville, Ohio

The Value Engineering study was started during the initial VEworking conference conducted at the Omaha District during February7th through 9th, 1994. The study was based on the PreliminaryRemedial Design Draft Report, dated January 1994, prepared by PRCEnvironmental Management, Inc. The study team was comprised ofrepresentatives of the Omaha District, EPA Region V, PRCEnvironmental Management, Inc. and was lead by a representative ofthe Corps' Value Engineering Team / OVEST. A site visit wasconducted on 7 February 1994 to see the site conditions andrelationships of constructability issues.

The project was studied using the Corps of Engineers' standardvalue engineering (VE) methodology, consisting of five phases:

Information PhaseSpeculation PhaseAnalysis PhaseDevelopment PhasePresentation Phase

During the information phase, the team studied the drawings,specifications and cost estimates to fully understand the work tobe performed and the functions to be achieved. Programming issuesand user functions were discussed fully. Cost models were preparedto determine areas of relative high cost to ensure that the teamfocused on those parts of the project which offered the mostpotential for cost savings.

The team speculated by conducting brainstorming sessions togenerate ideas for alternative designs. All team members wereencouraged to contribute ideas and critical analysis of the ideaswas discouraged.

Following Speculation the team analyzed these ideas and rankedthem by priority for development. Ideas which did not survivecritical analysis were deleted.

The most feasible ideas were initially developed during anintensive technical development period by the full VE study team.The full development of proposals which are presented in this ValueEngineering Team Study Report was continued and coordinated byOVEST. VE Team Comments are included for items of special interestwhich were not developed as technical proposals, but offer supportto the project.

Formal Presentation of the VE study recommendations will bemade at the Project Review conference in EPA Region V in March1994. The summary of the VE recommendations is given on thefollowing page.


SUMMARY OF VE RECOMMENDATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: FULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITEPROJECT LOCATION: Byesville, Ohio

PROPOSALNUMBER RECOMMENDATION SAVINGS

LA Revise Landfill Cap Design Using aComposite Geotextile Fabric andDrainage Net/Geomembrane/GeocompositeClay Liner* $1,661,954

IB Revise Landfill Cap Design Using aComposite Double Geotextile Fabric andDrainage Net/Textured VLDPE Geo-membrane/Geocomposite Clay Liner* $1,258,470

2 Eliminate Northeast and NorthwestRetaining Wall Systems and SlopeToe to Grade* $ 438,081

3 Eliminate Northeast and NorthwestRetaining Wall Systems and Use aGabion Retaining Wall* $ 511,815

4 Use Two Separate Storage Tanks forLeachate and Shallow Aquifer Storage $ 19,403

5 Modify Gas Collection Extraction System $ 45,807

Total Savings** $2,238,979

* Total Savings uses Proposal No. 1A with savings for thesingle fabric composite drain net estimated at $1,661,954.Two options are given for the elimination sheetpile retainingwalls - either Proposal Nos. 2 or 3. Proposal No. 3 is usedin the Total Savings amount.

**Total Savings of $2,238,979 are based on acceptance ofProposals Nos. LA, 3, 4, and 5.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL NO.: 1 PAGE NO.: 1 OF .DESCRIPTION: Revise Landfill Cap Design Using a Composite

Geotextile Fabric and Drainage Net/Geomembrane/Geocomposite Clay Liner

CRITERIA CHALLENGE: No CRITERIA NO.:___

ORIGINAL DESIGN: The current design provides an approximately 5-foot thick cap section covering the 21 acre landfill site. The capconsists of a 6-inch top soil layer, a 2-foot select fill layer,followed by a filter fabric separation, a gravel drainage layer, a40 mil VLDPE membrane, a geocomposite clay liner on a 6-inchengineered fill, a second filter fabric, and an 8-inch thickgranular fill for both leachate and gas. There is also some randomfill on top of the land fill waste to grade the site for capconstruction.

PROPOSED CHANGE: This proposal recommends that the cap section berevised to use a composite geotextile fabric layer bonded to apolyethylene drainage net, which is placed on a geomembrane liner(40 Mil VLDPE), with a geocomposite clay liner. The latter twolayers remain as provided in the original design.

The use of the open weave geodrainage net is more hydraulicallyefficient than the gravel drainage layer. A geotextile fabriclayer is bonded over the drainage net to form the compositedrainage layer. The center gravel drainage layer is therebydeleted. This new material combined with a geocomposite clay linerallows reduction of the 36-inch freeze-thaw zone as these materialsare not likely to degrade as would a natural clay earth layer. Itis recommended that the 2-foot thick select fill section be reducedto 18-inches. The cap will also be covered with a 6-inch top soillayer for a total 2-foot thick earth cover above the new liner.

Below the geocomposite clay liner, the 6-inch Engineered fill layerand filter fabric is deleted as the liner is competent forplacement directly over the 8-inch granular layer. The random fillon top of the existing land fill is still required to regrade theexisting surface.

The initially proposed single fabric composite drainage cap sectionis estimated as LA. An alternate for the proposed systemrecommends a similar cap section; however, a double geotextilefabric faced drainage net is placed on a two sided textured 40-milVLDPE. This substitution will make the cap more structurallystable for the sloped site. This alternative is estimated as IB.

This proposed liner section will result in an approximately 3-footthick cap section. (Reductions in retaining wall height is coveredunder Proposal Nos. 2 and 3.)

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION

PROPOSAL NO.: 1 PAGE NO.: 2 OP

ADVANTAGES:1. Reduces costs and construction time while providing an equal

or superior cap.

2. Less stress on public infrastructure due to reduced materialhauling.

3. Reduces cap loading and results in less landfill settlement.

4. Less susceptible to construction damage — gravel placementis not directly over geomembrane.

5. Reduced material exposure to atmosphere during construction.

6. Less lateral spread of construction into wetlands.

7 Provides an equally effective cap as has been used in similarregional areas including Pennsylvania and Virginia.

8. Geonet is a more effective drainage medium. (Less head build-up, less potential for leachate, and better site stability).

9. More structurally stable on slopes (further improved asdescribed in option IB featuring double fabric drain compositeon two sided textured VLDPE).

DISADVANTAGES: Slightly encroaches into a frost zone, but hasbeen used in similar region projects including Pennsylvania.

JUSTIFICATION: This proposal will provide an equal to or superiorcap for the Fultz Landfill Site at a reduced cost. The proposedcap, using less materials, weighs less and will result in reducedsettlement and subsidence. The 6-inch top soil and 18-inch selectfill meets BPA final cover criteria, and provides adequatethickness to protect the underlaying geosynthetic materials. Thecomposite fabric/drainage net provides superior drainage comparedto the gravel drainage layer. The leachate/gas collection layerserves as bedding layer for the geocomposite clay and VLDPE liners.HELP modeling has shown that the GCL is equally effective as theengineered fill sections . Because the engineered fill is deleted,one layer of Geotextile fabric is eliminated. The GCL has its ownexternal separator. Similar composite geosynthetic liners havebeen used at other BPA jobs, such as Delaware Sand and Gravel, Kaneand Lombard, New Lyme, Welsh Road and Blosenski Landfills. Savingsare $1,661,954 for single fabric composite drain net and $1,258,470for the double fabric composite drain net on textured VLDPE liner.(Appendix A provides documentation supporting this proposal)

ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWING/SKETCH

PROPOSAL NO.: PAGE NO.: OF

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE CAP CROSS-SECTION - ORIGINAL DESIGN

o

1u.

UJzjy

CD

1UJ0.

5z

5£<75o0.

omu.

UJ0.aX

UJo a.£0:«52£ceoUJ UJa. -j

10

PROPOSED DESIGN DRAWING/SKETCH


FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — PROPOSED CAP CROSS-SECTION

11

COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

PROPOSAL NO.: 1A (One Geotex Fabric Layer) PAGE NO.: 5 OF 6

ITEMDELETE :Gravel Drain Layer2-Ft Select FillGeotex Fab, 2-layersEngr Fill Layer, 6-In

ORIGINAL

U/M

CYCYSYCY

DESIGN

OTY

33,80067,600203,200

16,900

COST

$19.0012.002.50

12.00

UNITTOTAL

$ 642,200811,200508,000202,800

SUBTOTAL

ITEMADD:Geodrain NetGeotex Fab, 1-layerSelect Fill, 18-In

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M OTY

SYSYCY

101,600101,60050,700

COST

$ 1.982.50

12.00

$2,164,200

UNITTOTAL

201,168254,000608,400

SUBTOTAL $1,063,568

NET SAVINGSMARK-UPS (51.00%)TOTAL SAVINGS

$1,100,632561.322

$1,661,954

Geodrain Net - Unit Cost $1.98, National Seal Co.

(Mark-Up Calculation: Total Capital Cost $8,176,000 /Estimated Project Cost $5,414,400 - 1.5100 or 51.00%)

12


PROPOSAL NO.: IB (Two Geotex Fabric Layers) PAGE NO.: 6 OP 6

ITEMDELETE:Gravel Drain Layer2-Ft Select FillGeotex Fab, 2-layersEngr Fill Layer, 6-InVLPDE Liner

ORIGINAL

U/M

CYCYSYCYSY

DESIGN

QTY

33,80067,600203,200

16,900101,600

COST

$19.0012.002.50

12.004.00

UNITTOTAL

$ 642,200811,200508,000202,800406,400

SUBTOTAL

ITEMADD:Composite -Geodrain Net withGeotex Fab, 2-layers

Textured VLDPE LinerSelect Fill, 18-In

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M QTY

SYSYCY

101,600101,60050,700

SUBTOTAL

COST

6.984.13

12.00

$2,570,600

UNITTOTAL

709,168419,608608,400

$1,737,176


$ 833,424425.046

$1,258,470

June 92 - Welsh Road Landfill VLDPE Liner Unit Cost $4.13


13


PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE NO.: 1 OF 5DESCRIPTION: Eliminate Northeast and Northwest Retaining Wall

Systems and Slope Toe to GradeCRITERIA CHALLENGE: No CRITERIA NO.:___

ORIGINAL DESIGN; The current design provides an approximately 5-foot high steel sheetpile retaining wall system for approximately550 LF along the northeast and 400 LF along the northwest portionsof the Fultz Landfill site. The retaining walls are intended tocontain the nearly 5-foot thick landfill cap addition, and avoidconstruction encroachment into the wetland areas to the northeastand the residential area to the northwest. The sheetpile sectionsare assumed at 30 feet high (allowing for temporary 10-foot highwall during excavation of unsuitable material, with 5-foot backfillto slope to grade, and 20-foot buried depth).

The preliminary RD estimate reflected quantities for a full 1,600LF steel sheetpile retaining wall (48,000 SF) along the entirenorth landfill boundary; however, the preliminary design plan hasreduced the amount where adequate grades were found to slope thetoe into existing grade. Approximately 650 LF has been omittedfrom the proposed preliminary site plan (The VE proposal reflectsthis change and no claim for savings is made by this proposal.)

PROPOSED DESIGN; This proposal recommends elimination of thenortheast and northwest steel sheetpile retaining wall systems andsloping the toe to existing grade where adequate site conditionswill permit. The proposal considers the original 5-foot thick capis to be modified to approximately 3 feet as describe in ProposalNo. 1. Some removal of landfill debris may be required to redefinethe cap perimeter. A Gabion toe protection is provided with thelandfill liner turned down to end the cap construction. Anallowance is made for approximately 150 LF along the northeast ofthe site where the landfill is in closest proximity of the existingpond number 2. This area should be provided with some wall systemto avoid encroachment into the pond side slope. A Gabion U-channelas described in the attached detail is recommended forapproximately 150 LF at pond 2.

14


PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE NO.: 2 OF

ADVANTAGES:

1. The proposed toe tie-in eliminates use of steel sheetpilethereby addressing driveability issues for on-site soils withcobbles and rock outcrops noted present on the surface.

2. The toe may use the cap liner materials trenched and turneddown for a cut-off wall if required.

3. The Gabion toe and Gabion channel details follow previouslyestablished details from the Blosenski Landfill cap.

4. The natural looking toe tie-in has aesthetically pleasingappearance at less cost to the project.

DISADVANTAGES;

1. The proposed details must be developed for this site.

2. Some removal of landfill debris may be required to redefine thecap perimeter.

JUSTIFICATION: The modified thinner landfill cap permits slopingthe cap toe into the existing or slightly modified adjoining site.The tightest area noted was northeast at pond 2. Use of the Gabiontoe and the Gabion channel will serve as both grade tie and thelatter will channel runoff at the steeper grades at pond 2.Savings are estimated to be $438,081.

15

ORIGINAL DESIGN.DRAWING/SKETCH

PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE NO.: OF

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE PLAN (NOTED AS MODIFIED)

5.

16



FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — ORIGINAL CROSS-SECTION ANDPROPOSED SECTION DETAILS

OAT UNO

KflHHHi WALL-

4 MCH • HOT HOJ.

SCNTCNrTt POUTS-

•-INCH • FOVOUItO >«K-l£ACHATt COLLECTION

\-

DETAILED CAP CROSS-SECTION WITHLEACHATE SEEP COLLECTION SYSTEM

-TurfGncameu/i*

iy

Clorqt In SfoM fro*f Final

Orating *w> £l».7i6J3

£ notation umtar roe at flwwa" etamntfani

in rratnanu H THt location

TOE DRAIN DETAIL

(irisllng Ttrrain

£ilalna Ttrraln—

(Man fta*tf» f«MMgnVor/ts. SOT final eratlngflan tar Flo-tint fAwarcgnt

tare,Upatratm Cm WHO* tVactata ftfif GaOlan BtaU lltulua*.

•StawwMvfj/jrr/vUnt.

fritting Tarraln vorttt.

SaetHaai far Covtnaton

GABION CHANNEL DETAIL

17



ITEMDELETE:Steel Sheetpile Wall

ORIGINAL DESIGN

U/M QTY COST ______

SF 28,500 $14.00 $ 399,000

UNITTOTAL

SUBTOTAL $ 399,000

ITEMADD:Gabion ChannelGabion ToeSeedingTopsoilSelect FillRemoval of Landfill

Materials

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M QTY

LFLFMSFCYCY

LS

15080015.5300800

COST

$152.0085.6050.0020.0012.00

1,200.00

UNITTOTAL

22,80068,480

8006,0009,600

1,200

SUBTOTAL $ 108,880


$ 290,120147.961

$ 438,081


18


PROPOSAL NO.: 3 PAGE NO.: 1 OF 5DESCRIPTION: Eliminate Northeast and Northwest Retaining Wall

Systems and Use a Gabion Retaining WallCRITERIA CHALLENGE: No CRITERIA NO.:___

ORIGINAL DESIGN; The current design provides an approximately 5-foot high steel sheetpile retaining wall system for approximately550 LF along the northeast and 400 LF along the northwest portionsof the Fultz Landfill site. The retaining walls are intended tocontain the nearly 5-foot thick landfill cap addition, and avoidconstruction encroachment into the wetland areas to the northeastand the residential area to the northwest. The sheetpile sectionsare assumed at 30 feet high (allowing for temporary 10-foot highwall during excavation of unsuitable material, with 5-foot backfillto slope to grade, and 20-foot buried depth).

The preliminary RD estimate reflected quantities for a full 1,600LF steel sheetpile retaining wall (48,000 SF) along the entirenorth landfill boundary; however, the preliminary design plan hasreduced the amount where adequate grades were found to slope thetoe into existing grade. Approximately 650 LF has been omittedfrom the proposed preliminary site plan (The VE proposal reflectsthis change and no claim for savings is made by this proposal.)

PROPOSED DESIGN: This proposal recommends elimination of the 950LF of steel sheetpile retaining wall systems and recommends use ofa Gabion retaining wall where adequate site conditions will permit.The proposal considers the original 5-foot thick cap is to bemodified to approximately 3 feet as describe in Proposal No. 1.Some removal of landfill debris may be required to redefine the capperimeter. A Gabion wall is provided with the landfill linerturned down to end the cap construction. Use of a Gabion U-channel, as described in Proposal No. 2's detail, is optional forapproximately 150 LF where the landfill is in closest proximity ofthe existing pond number 2 to avoid encroachment into the pond'•side slope.

19



ADVANTAGES:

1. The proposed Gabion walls eliminate use of steel sheetpilethereby addressing driveability issues for on-site soils withcobbles and rock outcrops noted present on the surface.

2. The wall system may use the cap liner materials trenched andturned down for a cut-off wall if required.

3. The Gabion details generally follow previously establisheddetails from the Blosenski Landfill cap.

4. The Gabion wall has aesthetically pleasing appearance andperforms equally well at less cost to the project.

DISADVANTAGES;

1. The proposed details must be developed for this site.

2. Some removal of landfill debris may be required to redefine thecap perimeter.

JUSTIFICATION; The modified thinner landfill cap permits slopingthe cap toe into the reduced height walls and use of Gabion wallshas been previously been used on similar projects. The tightestarea noted was northeast at pond 2. Use of the Gabion wall or theGabion channel will serve as perimeter retaining walls and thelatter will channel runoff at the steeper grades at pond 2 ifselected. Savings are estimated to be $ 511,815 using the SimplerGabion walls.

20



FULTZ LANDFILL SITE PLAN (NOTED AS MODIFIED)

\\

21


PROPOSAL NO.: PAGE NO.: OF 5

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — ORIGINAL CROSS-SECTION ANDPROPOSED GABION WALL SECTION DETAIL

RETAINING WAI_L~

4 INCH • WEEP HOLE-v

IBENTW«TE PELLETS-"

6-INCH » PEPfOHATEO HOPE——LEACHATE COLLECTION PPE

WASTE

DETAILED CAP CROSS-SECTION WITHLEACHATE SEEP COLLECTION SYSTEM

-Turf-f Topsail

Gtecomposlttant

«-IN GRANULARLANDFILL MATERIAL

Propirfy Urn

- MINB SPOIL/ROCK/NATrVE SOIL

GABION DETAIL

•Slept lo Umte.nl sttfgTtrraln tnsia*Propirry Urn.

Existing

Boetslaet far Construction

22



ITEMDELETE:Steel Sheetpile Wall

ORIGINAL DESIGN

U/M OTY COST

SF 28,500 $14.00 $ 399,000

SUBTOTAL

UNITTOTAL

$ 399,000

ITEMADD:Gabion Wall - 5' X 3Select FillRemoval of Landfill

Materials

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M QTY

LFCY

LS

SUBTOTAL

950550

COST

$55.0012.00

1,200.00

UNITTOTAL

52,2506,600

1,200

60,050


$ 338,950172.865

$ 511,815


23


PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE NO.: 1 OF 4DESCRIPTION: Use Two Separate Storage Tanks for Leachate and

Shallow Aquifer StorageCRITERIA CHALLENGE: No CRITERIA NO.:___

ORIGINAL DESIGN: The existing design calls for the use of asingle 20,000 gallon tank to store both the leachate and thedewatering of the shallow aquifer. The stored water will be testedfor compliance with WQBELs and will be discharged into nearby pondsif treatment is not required. The need for treatment will continueto be evaluated during February 1994 upon receipt of CPL laboratorydata. Treatment will likely involve transfer of contaminatedstored water to an off-site treatment facility such as theByesville Sewerage Treatment Plant. The preliminary RD estimateallows for either an above ground or underground tank to be locatedin the uncapped area. (See Drawing No. 1)

PROPOSED CHANGE: This proposal recommends use two separatestorage tanks one for leachate and one for shallow aquifer storage.This proposal further defines the location, establishes approximatesizes, and acquisition of the tanks. Furthermore, since themajority of dewatering and leaching removal will occur in theinitial stages of construction, this proposal recommends leasingtwo larger tanks (say one-15,000 gallon and one-5,000 gallon).This initial leachate and dewatering process can develop moreintensely in the initial phases of construction and diminish afterthe cap has been installed. Two smaller permanent tanks (one fordewatering at, say 5,000 gallons, and one for leachate at, say1,000 gallons) are installed above ground near the north perimeterof the landfill.

Another variation could be the phasing of the dewatering ahead ofschedule to induce early settlement within the landfill which maybenefit the construction phase. An early contract prior to themain contract to perform the initial dewatering is possible, or thecontractor may be directed to begin dewatering say 3 months priorto start of cap placement.

24


PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE NO.: 2 OF 4

ADVANTAGES:

1. Reduces the size of the permanent tanks.

2. Separates leachate from dewatering - thereby reducing theamount of contaminant that may require hauling and/ortreatment.

3. Separate leachate and dewatering tanks will also allow thediscerning of the contaminant source as the shallow aquiferor the leachate seepage.

4. Above ground installation improves leakage detection,response and prevention.

DISADVANTAGES: Access by tanker trucks to haul contaminatedwater may require continual maintenance for roadway to north sideof the landfill site

JUSTIFICATION: Low volume flows justify smaller tank sizes oncethe site is capped. Savings are estimated at $19,403 for tanksalone. Undefined savings through construction benefits may resultfrom early dewatering efforts.

25



FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — STORAGE TANKS

26



ITEMDELETE:20,000 Gal Stor Tank

SUBTOTAL

ITEMADD:15,000 Gal Leased Tank5,000 Gal Leased Tank5,000 Gal Perm Tank1,000 Gal Perm Tank

SUBTOTAL


ORIGINAL DESIGN

U/M QTY

LS 1

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M QTY

MonthMonth

LSLS

3311

COST

$25,000

UNITTOTAL

$ 25,000

COST

$2502008,1002,700

$ 25,000

UNITTOTAL

$ 750600

8,1002,700

$ 12,150

$ 12,850$ 6.553$ 19,403


27


PROPOSAL NO.: 5 PAGE NO.:DESCRIPTION: Modify Gas Collection Extraction SystemCRITERIA CHALLENGE: No CRITERIA NO.:___

ORIGINAL DESIGN: The current gas extraction system consists of an8-inch thick granular gas collection layer with 6-inch perforatedHDPE gas collection pipe located approximately at 400-feetintervals to convey gas to surface vents spaced approximately atone per acre. The gas extraction is a passive venting systememitting low levels of methane gas from the landfill materials andfrom the mine voids. See the Fultz Landfill Site Plan — GasExtraction System and Gas Extraction Cross-Section for locationsand details.

PROPOSED DESIGN; This proposal recommends the gas piping bereduced to 4-inch diameter perforated HDPE and the selectedsections of the pipe be eliminated. The areas selected forelimination are approximately 1/200 LF and are generally end linesgoing toward the outside of the landfill cap. Adequate collectionpiping will remain to fully emit methane gas. It is questionedthat the highly perforated HDPE piped loops could be converted toan active venting system with vacuum maintained to the ends of thelines. It is also recommended that the vent pipe be modified from8-inch ductile iron to 6-inch UV resistant HDPE or PVC. Use ofHDPE pipe boots are recommended for pipe penentrations.

28



ADVANTAGES;

1. The proposed system is suggested to maintain methane gasextraction at a reduced cost to the project.

2. The HDPE or PVC vent pipe is resistant to methane gas inducedcorrosion.

3. The landfill age or cycle of gas generation may be peaked toallow use of the passive gas extraction system for the full life ofthe project.

DISADVANTAGES:

1. The proposed system will not be easily converted to an activegas extraction system if required in the future. It is questionedthat the existing system with highly perforated pipes can beeffectively converted also.

2. Conversion to an active system may require gas wells,condensate collection and removal, and modified lateral and feederpipe design and additional construction.

JUSTIFICATION;

1. The 8-inch granular blanket and 4-inch gravity piped gasextraction system is adequate to passive gas flows. The materialchange and reduced vent pipe size are considered adequate for apassive system. Savings are estimated to be $45,807.


PROPOSAL NO.: 5 PAGE NO.: OF 5

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE PLAN — GAS EXTRACTION SYSTEM(NOTED AS MODIFIED)


PROPOSAL NO.: PAGE NO.: OP

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — GAS EXTRACTION CROSS-SECTION(NOTEJ) AS MODIFIED)

1



ITEMDELETE :6-In HOPE Pipe8-In Ductile Iron

ORIGINAL DESIGNUNIT

U/M OTY COST TOTAL

LF 10,000 $12.00 $ 120,000LF 1,000 15.00 15,000

SUBTOTAL

ITEMADD:4-In HDPE Pipe6-In Vent Pipe

PROPOSED CHANGE

U/M QTY

LFLF

8,8001,000

COST

$10.5312.00

$ 135,000

UNITTOTAL

92,66412,000

SUBTOTAL $ 104,664


$$

30,33615.47145,807

32

VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS PAGE NO.: 1 OF 4

1. VE Study Team conclusions of the Project's Record of Decisionand Preliminary Remedial Design — The Fultz Landfill's scope ofwork and project objectives were well defined by the Record ofDecision (ROD) as described in the Project Description andBackground of this report. It is commendable that the preliminarydesign process has incorporated features to enhance the technicalcompliance of the design by means that address specific projectfunctional needs, and to provide opportunities which are also morecost effective. The following specific project features werenoteworthy for comments by the VE Team:

a. Modifications to the landfill cap were made in thepreliminary design to introduce a geosynthetic clay liner(GCL). This material is recognized to perform better than a24-inch compacted clay layer with considerable other benefits.GCL incorporates a durable polypropylene geotextile for shearstrength and slope stability. Permeability, typically 1 X 10~9

cm/sec/ is better than the 1 X 10"7 for clay. Constructibilityis much simpler with the light weight GCL (rolls are placed in15-foot widths and 125-foot lengths). Material hauling andequipment applications are reduced for the GCL. The GCL isnot subject to freeze-thaw degradation as is the clay liner.The VE team sees further opportunities for the cap design asare described in Proposals 1A and IB. The combination of thedesign and the VE study results in the most proficient capdesign with substantial reductions in material dimensions andweights while providing a superior cap.

b. The preliminary design strategy in addressing minestabilization was well received by the VE team. Allowance forlimited subsidence (approximately 2.5 feet) as was describedin the report offers overall the most favorable direction forthe project. This allows for minimizing effects by subsidenceto the cap by design/materials selection (GCL and VLDPE) andgroundwater extraction to reduce head acting on the mineaquifer. The proposed 3-foot (thinner, lighter weight) VE capsection compliments this option. Most importantly, it doesnot threaten water quality of the mine aquifer as does the useof grouting or hydraulic flushing. The aquifer remainscritical to Byesville's drinking water supply. Concerns withgrout dissolving and leaching into the aquifer may requireexhaustive mix design investigations, or use of a totallycementitious mix and column leaching test (TCLF - toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedures) and compliance with StateMCL requirements. Furthermore, cost for special groutmixtures may spiral if a silicate cement grout is used as isdescribed in Appendix B. Cost for this method of silicate-grout mix placement is estimated at nearly $200 per cubic yardto $4,500 per cubic yard, potentially raising project costsby $5 to $10 million (for 26,000 to 52,000 cu. yds.).Contingency planning for a mix design and mobilization planmay be appropreate for emergency repairs if ever required.

c. On-site/off-site Treatment issues will be further resolvedafter laboratory test data is disseminated.

33

VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS PAGE MO.: 2 OF 4

2. The following issues are provided to address projectenhancements or possible constructibility issues:

a. Consider construction sequencing or phased constructioncontracts for early dewatering of the landfill. This may beaccomplished with temporary storage tanks and allows for sitesettlement (say 3 to 4 months) prior to cap construction.

b. Provide contract allowances for additional geo-erosioncontrol materials, including temporary bio-degradable erosionmats, for more rapid establishment of grassing on landfillsloped areas to enhance nearby wet areas.

c. Extend perforated HDPE leachate collection pipe around toeof the cap for hydrostatic relief for the cap. Increasedfirst cost may avoid future higher repair cost.

d. Provide the allowance for temporary constructionencroaching into wetlands with reestablishment of damagedareas by the contractor. It may be quicker and less expensiveto reestablish damaged areas than to fully prevent allpossibilities of impact during construction.

e. Continue to address relocation of landfill materials fromthe west near the frontage road to meet local drainage androad shoulder safety. Also this issue supports power linerelocation further discussed in comment 3.

3. Revisit Power Line Relocation — The existing design depictsa 12,470 Volt aerial power line traversing the landfill along thewest frontage road. The design indicates capping the landfill willnecessitate relocating the power line. The plans do not show theplanned relocated line; however, a direct cost of $100,000 has beenallocated in the estimate for this effort. An estimated directcost for this relocation has been developed after informaltelephone conversations with the Ohio Power Co. ranging to $25,000.(See Drawing No. 1.)

This discussion attempts to define the power line relocation byoffering three options:

OPTION 1; One option is to try to retain the line in itsexisting location. The existing poles belong to GeneralTelephone. The power lines on those poles belong to OhioPower. At the VE study, the A/E indicated that additionalborings or site investigations would be made to determinewhether the narrow strip (about 30 ft) on the west side of thesite requires capping. If the results are positive, cappingwill not be required under the power line, also the line maynot need relocating. This option will offset costs forfurther site investigations by about $25,000 for the powerline and savings of approximately $66,000, at $46 per SY, bynot capping this area.

34

VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS PAGE NO. : 3 OF 4

3. Revisit Power Line Relocation (Continued) —

OPTION 2: This option suggests skirting the perimeter of thecap on the west side. Relocating poles off of the caps andclear of the drainage ditch must be field verified. Thelocation of the poles in the drawings are approximate, and aresubject to the exact placement of the cap and the drainageditch. Again the relocation will range to $25,000.

OPTION 3; This option attempts to relocate the power lineoff the site; thereby avoiding interference with the cap andthe construction activities. There is a concern with thesteep slope on the west side of the road. In addition, therepresentative of Ohio Power indicates that there is a slipcondition in the 40-foot road cut leading down hill to theInterstate Highway (shown in Drawing No. 1). Whether theoption can be exercised rests with the power company andGeneral Telephone. About $25,000 of Direct costs are added torelocate.

All three options are technically feasible, but each requiresfurther development and field investigations. The direct cost ofthe power line effort could be about $20,000 - $25,000 -ifcontracted directly between the Government and GTE/Ohio Powerrather than through a construction contractor. An adjustment tothe Preliminary RD estimate may be made and justification for morefield investigation is apparent.

35

DRAWING NO. 1: DESIGN DRAWING/SKETCH

COMMENT NO.: PAGE NO.: OF

FULTZ LANDFILL SITE — POWER LINE RELOCATION

36


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. Contact Directory — VE Team List

2. F.A.S.T. Diagram

3. Cost Models

4. Speculation List

5. Appendix A - Composite Geotextile Fabric Drainage Net Data

6. Appendix B - Underwater Silicate Grout Mix Data


CONTACT DIRECTORY

VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY TEAM FOR THEFULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

BYESVILLE, OHIOOmaha District, Omaha, NE

8-9 February 1994

NAME

Fred McAuley

Ronald Lanier

Charles Claghorn

Carl Canicatti

Steven Moore

Kurk Inglebart

Mike Steffensmeier

Donald Moses

Robert Saari

Greg Mellema

Larry Boardman

Thomas Bloom

Raj Rajaram

ORGANIZATION

General Engineer/OVEST

Civil Engineer/OVEST

Civil Engineer/OVEST

General Engineer/OVEST

Civil Engineer/CEMRO

PM/CEMRO

Technical PM/CEMRO

Geotechnical/CEMRO

Environmental/CEMRO

Geotechnical/CEMRO

Geotechnical/CEMRO

RPM, EPA - Region 5

PRC Environmental Management

TELEPHONE NO.

912-652-5715

912-652-5449

912-652-5173

912-652-5172

402-221-3929

402-221-7830

402-221-7163

402-221-3177

402-221-4424

402-221-4707

402-221-4706

312-886-1967

708-225-4166

FULTZ LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

DESIGN OBJECTIVES FUNCTIONS THAT HAPPENALL THE TIME

r i r i r ~i1 ASSESS | IC'SSTAMI-I 1 "OH"0* 1J RISKS j J HATES l̂ uiACNATS'!L- -I L _1 L_ |

AMUR* 1 |M_-T M.O.I | TREAT •MCL WATM " "J.MIT QROUNO-

•OUMCM 1 1 ^""••ll | I WATER

HOW 7 ' —————— ' ' —————— ' ' —————— '

W AVOID 1J IMPACTINQ1 WETLAND*L J

PROTECT PROTECT PREVENTMIIUAM PHOrtUT »*-rtlllKBi»

HBALTHX WMUUNW CONTAMI-CNVIRONMCNT WATER NATION

PROTECTni»mr-r

EXPOSURE

1JINSUj SAFIL .

CONTAINLANDFILLCONTAMI-

NATES

COLLECTLEACHATE

1COLLECTSHALLOWGROUND-

WATER

COLLECTMETHANE

OA3

RE 1STY 1

COMPU| WITI »TATU1pnovia

1 REDUCE| ELJMINA1RISKS T

! PUBLIC

ANCKlMronv 1ION* j

CONTROL/MONITORBVaTEMS

•TORILBACMATI/SHALLOWOROUND-

WATBR

1

MEETNPDS

H0 I1

WHY 7

* ——

INSTITUTEREMEDIALACTIONS

I§

FUNCTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM TECHNIQUE(FAST) DIAGRAM

COST MODELTOTAL PROJECT

MAJOR COST ITEMS

LANDFILL COVER CONSTRUCTION

BONDS AND INSURANCE ~| .265

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM J .242

LANDFILL GAS VENTING SYSTEM 1 .204

POWER LINE RELOCATION .151

STORM WATER DRAINAGE | . 1 44

GROUNDWATER STORAGE

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

7.094

2 3 4. 5 A

DOLLARS (MILLIONS)TOTAL = $8.200.000

OO(0*3I9

I

ta

COST MODELLANDFILL COVER CONSTRUCTION

MAJOR COST ITEMS

SELECT FILL

SHEET PILING

DRAINAGE LAYER

GCL

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

GAS COLLECTION LAYER

VLDPE LINER

TOP SOIL/VEGETATION LAYER

ENGINEERED SOIL BASE

SEEDING

CUT AND FILL

1.229

.6 .9DOLLARS (MILLIONS)

1.2 1.5

TOTAL = $7,094.130

I

t*

IMi

O

(VMOOaaft2nrtH-s

H»H

§

(0


SPECULATION LIST (Annotated)

/ = Idea for Development X = Idea Deleted? = Idea Requires Investigation CMT = CommentP = Priority Item Appropriate

X 1. Collapse Mine Shafts

? 2. Revisit westside of landfill (relocate some or all[and fill materials]).

X 3. In-fill pond #2.

? 4. Move west material to main landfill (see 2).

? 5. Make west area wetland mitigation area (see 2 and4) -

? 6. Put west material on top to achieve minimum slope(see 4 and 5).

P// 7. Use gabions for vertical walls (for one or bothsheet pile walls).

P// 8. Use cone. "T" or "L" wall, slope toe of cap, orother systems (see 7 — choose one).

P// 9. Move storage tank down hill, reduce pumping.(Easements for access issue, improved roads neededfor construction and maintenance.)

P// 10. Use above-ground storage tank.

P// 11. New cap section —a. 6" cover b. 6" cover

18" select 18" selectFilter Fab Filter FabGeonet Geonet40 mill VLDPE 40 mill VLDPEGeocomposit Geocomposit12" Gravel/Leachate/Gas Other 8" or 10"(Reduce Pipe sizes/gas (driven by pipe size)maybe, but water isdesign driven by flows)

CMT 12. Use performance specification for composite linermaterial (covered by Guide Spec).

P// 13. Address extraction well and subsidence issue (usetelescoping pipe).


SPECULATION LIST (Annotated) (con't)


P// 14. Use horizontal well drilling (constructionsequencing — de-watering).

CMT 15. Use 2" or 3" pipe to storage tanks; being done indesign.

X 16. Delete cap and flush site.

P// 17. Use cold-rolled steel pile.

X 18. Use slurry wall.

X 19. Use fiberglass sheet pile.

P// 20. Use 4" gas pipe (also investigate loops). (See newcap design.)

P// 21. Revisit power line relocation.

/ 22. Use vents, delete or reduce pipe (see 20).

CMT 23. Put construction easements in for wetlandconstruction (re-establish any damaged wetland areasimpacted during construction).

CMT 24. Revisit grout stabilization versus subsidence.(Address work scope ROD and RD. Discuss design andcost avoidance.)

P// 25. Reduce north-west portion of sheet pile wall (tiewith other wall proposals).

CMT 26. Extend leachate collection to provide hydrologicalrelief for cap. (Cost growth — technicallyrequired to avoid blow out.)

X 27. Relocate road to avoid relocation of waste materialson small west area.

CMT 28. Consider geotextile versus rip rap for surfacedrainage (lined ditches).

X 29. Use soil at underdeveloped center area for borrowsource.


SPECULATION LIST (Annotated) (con't)


CMT 30. Use bio-erosion control mat (also use on landfillcap). (Small increased cost — rapid establishmentof erosion protection.)

X 31. Do nothing, do less to site.

CMT 32. Construction sequencing — de-water before applyingcap. (Tie with other proposals; use existing wallsfor de-watering. Two contracts.)

CMT 33. Tech revision ROD (PRC to develop full support!).

P// 34. Commentaries on design changes from original scope.

P// 35. Temporary tanks/leased tanks (mobile) (Econo tanks).


APPENDIX A: Composite Geotextile Fabric Drainage Net Data

Plastic bags' seal Fort Eustis3eotextilereplacementsaves Corps$1 million

Article and Photo*By Diana BaileyNorfolk District

There's a relatively new twist onthe traditional method of restoringlandfills. Old-fashioned aa it seems,"bagging your trash" has turned outto be the best way to deal with gar-bage, according to a value engineer-ing review of a project to cap twotrash dumps at one of the largest in-stallation restoration projects in thecountry.

The $11 million project, to cap twoabandoned landfills containing haz-ardous and toxic material at FortEustis, Va., calls for more than 80,000dump truck loads and as many as 600round trips per day. It will take thecontractor, Laidlaw EnvironmentalServices of Burlington, N.C., morethan a year to complete. It is the larg-tt installation restoration project in

.•forth Atlantic Division (NAD), ac-cording to Jack Pickett, the Installa-tion Restoration Program Manager atNAD.

Patrick Devereux, Project Engi-neer for Norfolk District's SouthernVirginia Area Office, explained thatone of the keys to the successfulclean-up of a landfill project ia the fi-nal cap which keeps surface watersuch aa rain away from the trashlayer, reducing leaching into sur-rounding soil and water.

Originally, the contract called forthe surface cap to be a nearly imper-meable layer of clay. "But under thevalue engineering clause of our con-tract, Laidlaw submitted an alternatedesign," Devereaux said. The designuses manmade materials of very lowdensity polyethylene which is moreimpervious than the clay and shouldgive a better cap."

It will also save the governmentthe $1 million it would cost to haulthe extra two-and-a-half feet of clayand sand.

At first glance, the polyethylenelooks like a shiny black kitchentrsahbag, only thicker. Two more lay-ers complete the design. A waffle-likedrainage grid diverts runoff to thegravel beds encircling the landfill.Next in the three-layer sandwichcomes a filter cloth that keeps the per-forated drainage grid unclogged.

On top of the three layers ofisnmade materials goes two feet of

topeoil. The final touch calls for re-planting vegetation to stabilize thearea and further reduce erosion.

Geotextiles that resemble plastic bags replace four feet of expensivetruck-hauled clay at the largest installation restoration project iaNorth Atlantic Division.

The project actually calls for re-storing two sites. The first and old-est is a 53-acre tract along theWarwick River. It was used by thepost from 1951 through 1972 to dis-pose of all types of household and postrefuse, including paint, oils, pesticideand herbicide containers, and con-struction debris.

At 23 acres, the second site is onlyhalf aa large aa the older location.Sitting on a bluff above Bailey'sCreek, it operated from 1972 through1988. It also contains the same typesof trash.

The capping also caps years ofstudy of the two sites to ensure thebest cleanup strategy. Since the late1970s, agencies looking at the project

have included the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the Virginia StateDepartment of Waste Managementand Department of EnvironmentalQuality, and representatives from theCorps of Engineers and Fort Eustis.

"The change in design providestwo advantages," Devereux said. "Weget a better project and save money.*

Construction began March 8 andis expected to be finished next July.However, ground and surface watermonitoring, including quarterly testsfor contaminates, will continue for atleast the next five years. Accordingto Corps and post officials, other re-medial steps will be taken shouldmonitoring show the need for addi-tional measures.

Three layers replace the clay-and-eandcap—polyethylene fab-ric seals the site; a waffle-likedrainage grid diverts run-off togravel beds, and a filter clothkeeps the grid clean.

m.mill!!-!iitihi Iiililli)

Ill t J1111!'!

The Right ChoiceThe following table shows the flow requirement lor aretaining wall and compares those requirements tothe How provided by Tensar DC 1101. These ttowsare shown for a variety of ground pressures. As youcan see, crush-resistant Tensar DC is the choice formaximum reliability, even at high confining pressures.

TENSAR Ontntg* Compoftt»Flow H»t» ». Confining Pnuunt

Confining Pressure (KPSF)0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Wall Height

fl FwtoNi«MM«*M«

TMiMMtf p» ASTU OH It

Specify the BestTensar Drainage Composites are the ones to choosebecause they:• Meet flow requirements in specified applications.• Provide reliable, long-term flow, and• Are easy to Install, lightweight, and competitively

pricedWith Tensar Drainage Composites you can specifythe flow you need with confidence.

A Broad Product LineTensar Drainage Composites come in three configu-rations to give you the product you need for a varietyof applications.

Drainage Applications for Tensar Drain-age Composite with geotextile fabricon one side (DCF100 or DC1101):

Drainage Applications for Tensar Drain-age Composite with geotextile fabricon both sides (DC1200):

Retaining WallsFoundationsBridge AbutmentsPlaza DecksRoof DrainsPlanter BoxesGas Cotoction Systems

Earth Slopes> Embankments' Earth Dams> Interceptor Drains' Leachala Systems

DCF100. our premium product for retaining and foun-dation waits, is designed tor use where walerproolingIs critical. DCF100 ha* a geotextile on one side andan impermeable Him on the other, to provide thehighest level ol protection against seepage or leaks.The Mm mounts against your walerprooling surface.

OCI2M

DC1101 has a geolexlile bonded to one side. II isdesigned for use with the net side against a water-proofed surface and is used where the top line protec-tion of DCF100 is not needed.

Please see brochure cover for illustration ol other primary applications.

For More InformationTENSAR Gaognds andnlritoulad throughout InaUnttad Stale* by Contact!ConUuakm Products loc.For more Moimakon onTENSAR design* andepcacaltona. eonUcl yourContact) ConatnM.lkjiiProduct! oMce raw**! you.

fleptona/ Offices mn In KM knowing ctlin:

Ted Advantage

Contact) ConstructionProduct* Inc.Dept. 8607P.O. Boi 800MkMkMown. Ohio 450421-600-336-1122(In Ohio 1-80O-752 889S)

Atlanta. GA 30359Intanapokt. IN 462507Memphis. TN 38157Oak Brook. U. 60521Pabner, MA 01060Raleigh. NC 276MSan Bemaidlno. CA 824O8Top**. KS 66614WnMI Rldgi. CO 00033

PO.Bo»4»S26 40402S08I4164 Grihim Hd. Suto 120 3ir/S42-77865050 Poplar Avanu* Sod* 1028 901/761-34461200 Hargw Road SuH* 707 7087573-1110Fenian SI. 413/263-76114700Honwx>odCl.SulU106 »1»/7»I-S5401565 South 0. SI. Suta 203 714/»»»-66005863 S.W. 2Mb »13/2735»SOSuila Its 4M1 Indapandanca SI. 303/431 6*M

SakM OtlKM am In prtnop*! CUM

DC 1200 has a geolexlile bonded to both sides. It'sused when it will be placed with soil on both sides ofthe drain, such as in a slope interceptor drain.

PNMTtD M US A


APPENDIX B: Underwater Silicate Grout Mix Data

EN=I FEATURE

Mix halts flowing water in secondsAdditive has been around a long time, but it's becoming sophisticated

A super fail-setting grouthas been nuking somenew marks for stanchingwater flows and now is inTor a major underwater

test. A silicate additive causes the ce-ment grout 10 set in as little as threeseconds, even in rushing water.

The mix has been used to stem res-ervoir leaks, shore up a failing break-water and halt seepage through thebase of a dam. A test is planned usingu to cast a supporting column in aHooded mine to nail subsidence.

The grout is a mixture of cementand tedium silicate. Soluble silicateshave been used for more than 80 years10 enhance die properties of pordandcement mixes, according to one pro-ducer of the material. Trie PQ Corp..Valley Forge. Pa.

T1*M e*nftr«L What is new is sophis-ticated application procedures, saysHugh C. Carr. president of The JudyCo. Inc.. an engineering and construc-tion firm based in Kansas City. Kan. Itis a major user of the grout. "In recentyean we have developed a placementsystem which accurately controls themixes of sodium silicate and cementgrout and consequently their behav-ior." says Carr. * When dealing withinitial set times of 3 to 50 seconds,accurate control is essential."

"It's not really a material, it's a pro-cess that allows you to modify any ce-menmious grout." says Richard Reif-snyder. a PQ senior technical servicerepresentative

The sibcate forms a semipermeablegel around the grout so dut it doesnot become overly diluted and canachieve maximum strength. According10 Reifsnyder. the additive increasescompressive strength and lowers per-meability while enhancing structuralintegrity and durability.

Ine judv company used the materi-al 10 ir«ue J (rumbling breakwater inUiUjukrr H«fbut i.- uV

tnjfincert l"he grouting (.oninici waslor $'.M million An alternative reha-bilitation plan would have itni $50million to $tiO million. t.iy* Tom DCJJ,resident engineer with the Corps'sKewaunee. Wis . area oliice

As ontfuullv built in the 1890*. the3.800-ft breakwater ton MS ted of rock-tilled umber cnbs In the 1950s theywere surrounded by Heel sheet pilingand capped bv a reinforced concreteilab Dut the stone nil settled, eventu-ally leaving a void about -I 0 deepunder the cap. That caused the slab tosettle and the sheet piling tailed.

The contractor drilled about 3,200holes through the outer edge of thecap and injected 2,600 cu yd of quick-setting grout that formed a curtain asLake Michigan waves lapped throughpiling and cnbs. Then workers dolledthrough the center of the sbb andpumped in 9.250 cu yd of convention-al grout to hll the rest of the void.

Deja says the alternative would re-quire driving a new sheet pile wall."There's a tot of stone placed alongthat breakwater." he says. "We wouldhave had to do a lot of excavation.The grout really did the job for us."

ttopplm flaw. Judy Co also inject-ed the grout to halt flows through theupstream toe of an old concrete dam.It is part of a major repair and stabili-zation of Moms Sheppard Dam nearMineral Wells, Texas. (ENR 6/9/88p. 24). There are voids between theinternal walls and there is no baseslab. The cracked upstream toe was,cast into the rock foundation.

When workers drilled into the frac-

tured concrete they en-countered up 10 600 gpmof water Rowing underthe dam and along itsaxis in foundation rock.Conventional grout couldnot seal off the gush be-cause it dispersed quickly.according to Carr.

His company designeda silicate-cement mix thatset within seconds andpumped it in at a rate ofup to 80 gpm. About 56cu yd of grout was inject-ed through 42 hole*. Thework was done under amajor drilling contract.

«(McS*d to MM* • IM of money

says Judy Sullivan, treasurer of thefirm. She estimates that the silicaie-cement sealing cost about $250.000

CMtto* *•!•»•«•• The Judy andPQ companies plan a joint demonstra-tion, placing silicate-cement columnsin abandoned flooded coal mines un-der Rock Springs. Wyo., for the siateDepr of Environmental Quality JudyCo. is already injecting conventionalcement grout in rubble about 100 ftdeep to hall subsidence, says VKCPreside™ Robert Manhall.

The deep demonstration would testa noule that PQ. developed recently Itdelivers cement through a tube sur-rounded by an annular passage carry-ing silicate. The two mix at the mouthoi the nozzle, preventing clogging

The material then would form a col-umn with a steep angle of repose (seedrawing) According to PQ, that willcost less than one-tenth as much aspumping cement grout inio the stand-ing water because of savings in materi-al, labor and equipment cosu. •

By .iUt* feotf