completion of removal action report saco municipa landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf ·...

59
SUFERFUND RECORDS CTR Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure Saco, Maine WOODARD&CURRAN Engineering Science Operations 41 Hutchins Drive Portland, ME 04102 Tel: (207)774-2112 Date: April 1999

Upload: others

Post on 04-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

SUFERFUND RECORDS CTR

Completion of Removal Action ReportSaco Municipal Landfill Closure

Saco Maine

WOODARDampCURRANEngineering bull Science bull Operations41 Hutchins DrivePortland ME 04102Tel (207)774-2112Date April 1999

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE NO

VOLUME 1

1 PROJECT SUMMARY 1 11 Introduction 1 12 Project History 1 13 Project Costs 2 14 Construction Project Description 3

141 Waste Limit Determination 3 142 Waste Relocation Grading 4 143 Cap Construction 4 144 Surface Drainage 4 145 Surface Stabilization 4

15 Construction Chronology 5 51 June 1997 5 52 July 1997 5 53 August 1997 5 54 September 1997 5 55 October 1997 6

156 November 1997 6 157 December 1997 6 158 January to April 1998 6 159 May 1998 6 1510 June 1998 6 1511 July 1998 7 1512 August 1998 7 1513 September 1998 7 1514 November 1998 7

2 PROJECT RECORDS 8 21 Field Reports 8

211 Woodard amp Curran 8 212 HESargent 8

22 Construction Meetings 8 23 Change In Work Directives 8 24 Submittal Log 9 25 Record Technical Specifications amp CQA Plan 9 26 Record Drawings 9 27 Photos 9

9606401 i 51299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION 10 31WRAA 10 32WRAB 10 33WRAC 10 34WRAD 11 35 Waste Regrading 11 36 Seep Sediment Removal 11

4 LANDFILL CAP 13 41 Passive Gas Venting 13

411 Vents 13 412 Ambient Air Monitoring 13

42 Subsurface Drainage 13 421 Drainage Layer 13 422 Cover Termination 14

43 Surface Drainage 14 431 Slope Benches 14 432 Downdrain Channels 15 433 Perimeter channels 15 434 Culvert Pipes 15

44 Surface Stabilization 16 45 Landfill Cap Soils 16

451 Base Cover Soil 16 452 Gas Transmission Sand 16 453 Barrier Soil 16 454 Drainage Sand 21 455 Select Borrow 22 456 Topsoil 22

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION 23 51 JampL Engineering Inc Certification Report 23 52 GcoSyntec Consultants Report 24

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST 25 61 Sand - Gcomembrane 25 62 Barrier Soil - Geomembrane 26

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE 30 71 Special Issues 30

711 Landfill 2 30 712 Waste Stumps 30 713 Frost Protection 30 714 In-Place Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture 31 715 Geotextile Fabric 31 716 Geomembrane Bridging 31 717 Fuel Spill 31 718 Leachate Breakouts 32 719 Sediment Basin 32 7110 Cover Termination 33 7111 Barrier Soil Repair 33 7112 Winter Construction Shutdown 34 7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List 34

9606401 ~ ii 51299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

7114 Work Performed for Completion 35 7115 Final Inspection 35

72 Noh-Conformances 35 721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240 35 722 Geomembrane Installation 36 723 Gas Sand Sample 127 37 724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533 37 725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115 37 726 Cover Termination Station 13+50 37 727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet 38 728 Slope Bench Channel Grade 38 729 Topsoil Organic Matter 38

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE 39 81 NTCRA Performance Standards 39 82 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 44

9 CONCLUSION 51 91 Concluding Statement 51 92 Certifying Stamp amp Signatures 51

9606401 iii 51299 SaeoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS

A FIELD REPORTS

Al Woodard amp Curran - Daily Reports

A2 Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

A3 HE Sargent Inc - Daily Reports

B PROJECT RECORDS

B1 Meeting Notes

B2 Change In Work Directives

B3 Submittal Log

B4 Record Technical Specifications

B5 Record Drawings

B6 Photos

VOLUME 2

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

Cl Base Cover Soil (Grain Size)

C2 Gas Transmission Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) 111 Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor)

C3 Earner Soil i Summary Table ii Watson Pit Source (Test Pits Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iii Cole Dairy Source (Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iv Delivered Soil Tests (Moisture Content Grain Size Atterberg Proctor Direct Shear) v Test Pad (Hydraulic Conductivity) vi Moisture Content Comparisons

9606401 ivSicoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

51299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 2: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE NO

VOLUME 1

1 PROJECT SUMMARY 1 11 Introduction 1 12 Project History 1 13 Project Costs 2 14 Construction Project Description 3

141 Waste Limit Determination 3 142 Waste Relocation Grading 4 143 Cap Construction 4 144 Surface Drainage 4 145 Surface Stabilization 4

15 Construction Chronology 5 51 June 1997 5 52 July 1997 5 53 August 1997 5 54 September 1997 5 55 October 1997 6

156 November 1997 6 157 December 1997 6 158 January to April 1998 6 159 May 1998 6 1510 June 1998 6 1511 July 1998 7 1512 August 1998 7 1513 September 1998 7 1514 November 1998 7

2 PROJECT RECORDS 8 21 Field Reports 8

211 Woodard amp Curran 8 212 HESargent 8

22 Construction Meetings 8 23 Change In Work Directives 8 24 Submittal Log 9 25 Record Technical Specifications amp CQA Plan 9 26 Record Drawings 9 27 Photos 9

9606401 i 51299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION 10 31WRAA 10 32WRAB 10 33WRAC 10 34WRAD 11 35 Waste Regrading 11 36 Seep Sediment Removal 11

4 LANDFILL CAP 13 41 Passive Gas Venting 13

411 Vents 13 412 Ambient Air Monitoring 13

42 Subsurface Drainage 13 421 Drainage Layer 13 422 Cover Termination 14

43 Surface Drainage 14 431 Slope Benches 14 432 Downdrain Channels 15 433 Perimeter channels 15 434 Culvert Pipes 15

44 Surface Stabilization 16 45 Landfill Cap Soils 16

451 Base Cover Soil 16 452 Gas Transmission Sand 16 453 Barrier Soil 16 454 Drainage Sand 21 455 Select Borrow 22 456 Topsoil 22

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION 23 51 JampL Engineering Inc Certification Report 23 52 GcoSyntec Consultants Report 24

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST 25 61 Sand - Gcomembrane 25 62 Barrier Soil - Geomembrane 26

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE 30 71 Special Issues 30

711 Landfill 2 30 712 Waste Stumps 30 713 Frost Protection 30 714 In-Place Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture 31 715 Geotextile Fabric 31 716 Geomembrane Bridging 31 717 Fuel Spill 31 718 Leachate Breakouts 32 719 Sediment Basin 32 7110 Cover Termination 33 7111 Barrier Soil Repair 33 7112 Winter Construction Shutdown 34 7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List 34

9606401 ~ ii 51299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

7114 Work Performed for Completion 35 7115 Final Inspection 35

72 Noh-Conformances 35 721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240 35 722 Geomembrane Installation 36 723 Gas Sand Sample 127 37 724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533 37 725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115 37 726 Cover Termination Station 13+50 37 727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet 38 728 Slope Bench Channel Grade 38 729 Topsoil Organic Matter 38

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE 39 81 NTCRA Performance Standards 39 82 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 44

9 CONCLUSION 51 91 Concluding Statement 51 92 Certifying Stamp amp Signatures 51

9606401 iii 51299 SaeoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS

A FIELD REPORTS

Al Woodard amp Curran - Daily Reports

A2 Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

A3 HE Sargent Inc - Daily Reports

B PROJECT RECORDS

B1 Meeting Notes

B2 Change In Work Directives

B3 Submittal Log

B4 Record Technical Specifications

B5 Record Drawings

B6 Photos

VOLUME 2

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

Cl Base Cover Soil (Grain Size)

C2 Gas Transmission Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) 111 Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor)

C3 Earner Soil i Summary Table ii Watson Pit Source (Test Pits Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iii Cole Dairy Source (Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iv Delivered Soil Tests (Moisture Content Grain Size Atterberg Proctor Direct Shear) v Test Pad (Hydraulic Conductivity) vi Moisture Content Comparisons

9606401 ivSicoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

51299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 3: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION 10 31WRAA 10 32WRAB 10 33WRAC 10 34WRAD 11 35 Waste Regrading 11 36 Seep Sediment Removal 11

4 LANDFILL CAP 13 41 Passive Gas Venting 13

411 Vents 13 412 Ambient Air Monitoring 13

42 Subsurface Drainage 13 421 Drainage Layer 13 422 Cover Termination 14

43 Surface Drainage 14 431 Slope Benches 14 432 Downdrain Channels 15 433 Perimeter channels 15 434 Culvert Pipes 15

44 Surface Stabilization 16 45 Landfill Cap Soils 16

451 Base Cover Soil 16 452 Gas Transmission Sand 16 453 Barrier Soil 16 454 Drainage Sand 21 455 Select Borrow 22 456 Topsoil 22

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION 23 51 JampL Engineering Inc Certification Report 23 52 GcoSyntec Consultants Report 24

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST 25 61 Sand - Gcomembrane 25 62 Barrier Soil - Geomembrane 26

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE 30 71 Special Issues 30

711 Landfill 2 30 712 Waste Stumps 30 713 Frost Protection 30 714 In-Place Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture 31 715 Geotextile Fabric 31 716 Geomembrane Bridging 31 717 Fuel Spill 31 718 Leachate Breakouts 32 719 Sediment Basin 32 7110 Cover Termination 33 7111 Barrier Soil Repair 33 7112 Winter Construction Shutdown 34 7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List 34

9606401 ~ ii 51299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

7114 Work Performed for Completion 35 7115 Final Inspection 35

72 Noh-Conformances 35 721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240 35 722 Geomembrane Installation 36 723 Gas Sand Sample 127 37 724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533 37 725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115 37 726 Cover Termination Station 13+50 37 727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet 38 728 Slope Bench Channel Grade 38 729 Topsoil Organic Matter 38

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE 39 81 NTCRA Performance Standards 39 82 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 44

9 CONCLUSION 51 91 Concluding Statement 51 92 Certifying Stamp amp Signatures 51

9606401 iii 51299 SaeoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS

A FIELD REPORTS

Al Woodard amp Curran - Daily Reports

A2 Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

A3 HE Sargent Inc - Daily Reports

B PROJECT RECORDS

B1 Meeting Notes

B2 Change In Work Directives

B3 Submittal Log

B4 Record Technical Specifications

B5 Record Drawings

B6 Photos

VOLUME 2

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

Cl Base Cover Soil (Grain Size)

C2 Gas Transmission Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) 111 Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor)

C3 Earner Soil i Summary Table ii Watson Pit Source (Test Pits Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iii Cole Dairy Source (Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iv Delivered Soil Tests (Moisture Content Grain Size Atterberg Proctor Direct Shear) v Test Pad (Hydraulic Conductivity) vi Moisture Content Comparisons

9606401 ivSicoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

51299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 4: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

7114 Work Performed for Completion 35 7115 Final Inspection 35

72 Noh-Conformances 35 721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240 35 722 Geomembrane Installation 36 723 Gas Sand Sample 127 37 724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533 37 725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115 37 726 Cover Termination Station 13+50 37 727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet 38 728 Slope Bench Channel Grade 38 729 Topsoil Organic Matter 38

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE 39 81 NTCRA Performance Standards 39 82 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 44

9 CONCLUSION 51 91 Concluding Statement 51 92 Certifying Stamp amp Signatures 51

9606401 iii 51299 SaeoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS

A FIELD REPORTS

Al Woodard amp Curran - Daily Reports

A2 Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

A3 HE Sargent Inc - Daily Reports

B PROJECT RECORDS

B1 Meeting Notes

B2 Change In Work Directives

B3 Submittal Log

B4 Record Technical Specifications

B5 Record Drawings

B6 Photos

VOLUME 2

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

Cl Base Cover Soil (Grain Size)

C2 Gas Transmission Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) 111 Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor)

C3 Earner Soil i Summary Table ii Watson Pit Source (Test Pits Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iii Cole Dairy Source (Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iv Delivered Soil Tests (Moisture Content Grain Size Atterberg Proctor Direct Shear) v Test Pad (Hydraulic Conductivity) vi Moisture Content Comparisons

9606401 ivSicoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

51299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 5: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS

A FIELD REPORTS

Al Woodard amp Curran - Daily Reports

A2 Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

A3 HE Sargent Inc - Daily Reports

B PROJECT RECORDS

B1 Meeting Notes

B2 Change In Work Directives

B3 Submittal Log

B4 Record Technical Specifications

B5 Record Drawings

B6 Photos

VOLUME 2

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

Cl Base Cover Soil (Grain Size)

C2 Gas Transmission Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) 111 Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor)

C3 Earner Soil i Summary Table ii Watson Pit Source (Test Pits Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iii Cole Dairy Source (Grain Size Proctors Direct Shear Moisture Content Hydraulic

Conductivity) iv Delivered Soil Tests (Moisture Content Grain Size Atterberg Proctor Direct Shear) v Test Pad (Hydraulic Conductivity) vi Moisture Content Comparisons

9606401 ivSicoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

51299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 6: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUME 2 (conU

C SOILS DOCUMENTATION

C4 Drainage Sand i Summary Table ii Source Tests (Grain Size Moisture Content Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity Direct Shear) iii Delivered amp In-Place Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Hydraulic Conductivity)

C5 Select Borrow i Summary Table ii Delivered Soil Tests (Grain Size Proctor Direct Shear)

C6 Special Borrow (Grain Size)

C7 Compost amp Topsoil (Agronomic Properties)

C8 In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

C9 Interface Shear Test Reports

D REPORTS

D1 Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report

D2 Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

E SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL ACTION

El Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action

E2 Sediment Removal Action Support Documents

F PUNCH LIST

G TRC SUMMARY REPORTS

H LANDFILL 3 amp 4 AIR SAMPLING REPORT

9S06401 vSaco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

J1299

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 7: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipal Landfill Closure

APPENDIX SECTIONS (continued)

VOLUMES 3 AND 4

Geosynthetic Construction Documentation and Certification Report

by JampL Engineering

VOLUME 5

Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Report

by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 viSraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

51299

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 8: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

11 INTRODUCTION

This Completion of Removal Action Report summarizes the construction quality assurance (CQA) activities performed for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) design and construction of the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine It is provided to fulfill the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement of Work (SOW) for the NTCRA and also Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations

12 PROJECT HISTORY

The Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine served as a disposal site for municipal commercial and industrial wastes from approximately 1963 to 1988 The 90plusmn acre site owned by the City of Saco contained four separate landfill areas (Areas 1 2 3 and 4)

In 1990 the EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and by November 1995 the City of Saco entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA CERCLA Docket No I-CERCLA-95-1069) to conduct a Remedial Investigation a Feasibility Study and an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)

Based on the preliminary results of Phase 1A Remedial Investigation the EPA identified conditions at the site that indicated it was appropriate to conduct a NTCRA at Landfill Areas 3 and 4 Landfill Areas 3 and 4 can generally be described as the two disposal areas on the site located southwesterly of Sandy Brook Landfill Areas 3 and 4 are contiguous to each other but with a different history of use Landfill Area 4 was operated from about 1974 to 1989 and accepted primarily municipal solid waste The waste was covered with soil but the area had not received a final cover system prior to the NTCRA Landfill Area 3 was developed around 1985 to serve as an industrial waste storage area A considerable amount of the stored industrial waste material in Area 3 was removed in 1992 with the approval of the MEDEP however some wastes remained

In July 1996 the City of Saco submitted an EECA describing site conditions and proposed remedial alternatives for Landfill Areas 3 and 4 An Action Memorandum documenting the selection of a multi-barrier cover system waste consolidation and focused sediment removal as the preferred remedial activity for these areas was prepared and signed by the EPA in September 1996 The Action Memorandum required

1 Excavation of all sediments in the ground water seep adjacent to Sandy Brook having an arsenic concentration above 19 mgkg

2 The design and construction of a multi-layer low hydraulic conductivity cap over the landfill 3 Long Term Monitoring of ground water surface water and sediments 4 Post-Removal Site Control and 5 Institutional Controls

9606401 1 051299 SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 9: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include Sediment Excavation and Consolidation Consolidation of Solid Waste Landfill Cap Surface Waters Air Long Term Monitoring Post Removal Site Control and Institutional Controls

The design for the NTCRA was concurrent with the Order approval process A draft Order was available and on this basis a Design Report Specifications Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance Plan were developed to assure achievement of the anticipated NTCRA Performance Standards The Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action dated December 1996 and Design Report (Amended) dated May 29 1997 may be referenced for detailed information of the design

Prior to the Order approval the City of Saco commenced activities to remove ground water seep sediments in December 1996 and to allow work for the landfill cap to start in May 1997 Although these activities were in advance of approval of the Order the City of Saco elected to accept the risk and obtain an early start on NTCRA activities which via understandings from discussions with the EPA and MEDEP would presumably be approved with few if any changes The advanced start by the City was beneficial It shortened the time to project completion by taking advantage of the 1997 construction season thus promptly addressing environmental issues at the site

On July 10 1997 the EPA approved with conditions the Final Design for the NTCRA Efforts to complete the performance standards have ensued The performance standards of the Order have been completed with the exception of Long Term Monitoring and Post Removal Site Control which continue into the future Institutional Controls have been developed and are currently being finalized by the EPA MEDEP and the City of Saco

13 PROJECT COSTS

Table 1-1 summarizes the approximate costs for the major components of the Saco Municipal Landfill project With regards to this information it is important to acknowledge that the project occurred over a period of years the dollar values are only estimates and the costs of incidental tasks as well as regulatory agency costs are not included

9606401 2 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 10: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

TABLE l-l APPROXIMATE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Study Design amp Construction or Engineering Implementation Costs

Removal Action Objectives Remedial Investigation $480000 NA Feasibility Study $100000 NA Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis $75000 NA

NTCRA Sediment ExcavationConsolidation $115000 $50000 Consolidation of Solid Waste amp Landfill Cap $180000 $2300000 Surface Waters ND NA Air $15000 NA Long Term Monitoring ND $80000 per year Post Removal Site Control ND $25 000 per year Institutional Controls ND NA

Other Wetlands Compensation amp Enhancement $50000 $200000

NA - Not Applicable ND - Not Determined

14 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Construction for the NTCRA involved removal of sediments from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook locating the waste boundary of Landfills 3 and 4 consolidation and grading of waste installation of gas vents construction of the composite cap surface drainage controls and permanent stabilization of the disturbed area for erosion prevention

Woodard amp Curran provided resident engineering services and construction administration support to the projects owner City of Saco Maine Woodard amp Curran utilized the services of four firms to support the effort SW Cole Engineering Inc Bangor Maine provided soils testing inspection and consultation services JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania provided geosynthetics inspection consultation and certification services GeoSyntec Consultants Inc of Atlanta Georgia furnished independent review of the JampL Engineering services TRI Environmental Austin Texas provided laboratory testing of geosynthetic materials GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts provided interface shear testing

The general contractor for the landfill cap construction project was HE Sargent Inc Stillwater Maine As subcontractor RTD Enterprises of Madison Maine provided geomembrane liner installation The approximate cost of the landfill cap construction work was 23 million dollars

141 Waste Limit Determination

Waste boundary determination was an initial task accomplished This work involved excavating test pits along the perimeter of the apparent waste deposit A marker was set at the point where the test pit no

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 11: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

longer evidenced waste deposition These markers established the waste limit The markers were surveyed and reset as work proceeded All waste relocation and grading of wastes were performed with the intent of consolidating all wastes within these established bounds

142 Waste Relocation Grading

Waste relocation was the consolidation of wastes from other areas of the site into the Landfills 3 and 4 prior to installation of the cap system The waste relocation was from four waste removal areas and also from a seep adjacent to Sandy Brook

Grading of the landfills waste mass was necessary to obtain suitable surface grades for slope stability and drainage This work was performed by either pushing the wastes or by excavation and hauling with the end result being the prepared grades necessary for installation of the composite cap

143 Cap Construction

Cap construction consisted of the installation of soils and geosynthetic components in layered fashion to produce the completed cap Vent pipes to permit the controlled release of gases through the cap were included in this process Work to construct the cap was staged such that various layers of the cap were being installed at any particular stage of the cap construction

For identification purposes the construction Contractor divided the cap construction into five Work Areas which roughly represented the planned sequence of the cap construction ie Work Area 1 was the first to start and Work Area 5 the last to be completed These work areas were not bound by surveyed divisions of the cap but were only divided by imaginary lines with the intent of providing general nomenclature for discussions and documentation The approximate divisions of the Work Areas may be seen on Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B5 - Record Drawings During execution of the cap construction the work activities were not constrained by nor perfectly sequential with the Work Area numbering As an example geomcmbrane was installed in Work Area 4 before being installed in Work Area 3

144 Surface Drainage

Stormwater drainage from the surface of the landfill cap and immediate surroundings is conveyed by a designed system of slope benches channels and culvert pipes

To control the discharge of sediments from the site a sediment retention basin was constructed downhill of the cap construction area and stormwater flow directed to the basin by channels and culvert pipes During construction activity the basin accumulated but did not discharge sediment laden stormwater Upon stabilization of the majority of the surfaces within the basins drainage the sediments were removed from the basin and an outlet structure installed to control the release rate of future storm flows

145 Surface Stabilization

The surfaces of the landfill cap drainage conveyances and surrounding disturbed soil areas were permanently stabilized against erosion with vegetation use of riprap stone or gabion baskets The specific locations of each type of installation were governed by the design

9606401 4 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 12: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

15 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

The following is a summary of the landfill cap construction progress as presented in Appendix A2 Woodard amp Currans Weekly Reports The work commenced on June 3 1997 and continued until Substantial Completion and winter shut down on December 23 1997 Work resumed on May 11 1998 and was basically completed on July 17 1998 Some remaining repairs were performed later in July

151 June 1997

Work performed during June 1997 included bull contractor mobilization bull layout bull erosion amp sediment control bull test pits to determine waste limits bull site clearing bull sediment basin bull embankment fill

152 July 1997

Work performed during July 1997 included bull completed waste removals bull erosion amp sedimentation control bull waste grading bull paved Foss Road bull stockpiled materials bull base cover soil

153 August 1997

Work performed during August 1997 included bull waste grading bull base cover soil bull gas sand placement bull gas vents

154 September 1997

Work performed during September 1997 included bull barrier soil bull geomembrane bull drainage sand placement started September 10

Culvert 3 pipes and manholes test pads 1 amp 2 waste grading Waste Removal Areas base cover soil gas transmission sand

sand source sampling gas sand gas vents test pad 3 barrier soil placement

barrier soil geotextile deliveries geomembrane installation started August 26

drainage pipes pumping out sediment basin

051299 9606401 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 13: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

155 October 1997

Work performed during October 1997 included bull barrier soil landfill 2 work bull geomembrane select borrow bull drainage sand slope bench riprap bull geotextile separator October 4 to gabions

October 31

156 November 1997

Work performed during November 1997 included bull select borrow seeding bull topsoil erosion control blankets bull sediment basin pumping sediment basin in City Pit bull slope bench riprap cover termination bull gabions

157 December 1997

Work performed during December 1997 included bull cover termination inspections for substantial completion bull cleaning of sediment basin bull outlet of sediment basin bull erosion control blankets

158 January to April 1998

Work performed during the winter included bull maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control

159 May 1998

Work performed during May 1998 included bull punch list corrections (riprap cap slope gabions cover termination slope benches) bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches

1510 June 1998

Work performed during June 1998 included bull punch list corrections (gabion wall drainage channels) bull geomembrane installation supplemental field investigation and testing program bull cleaning of sediment from slope benches bull remove some of the temporary erosion and sediment controls

9606401 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 14: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

1511 July 1998

Work performed during July 1998 included

bull embankment relief drain bull inspections for final completion bull loam amp seeding bull stone lining of ditches bull site cleanup

1512 August 1998

Work performed during August 1998 included

bull repairs made to the slope bench channels bull additional stone lining of drainage channels bull modifications to drainages bull inspections for final completion

1513 September 1998

Work performed during September 1998 included

bull adjustments were made to the riprap lining of slope bench ditches bull inspections for final completion

No work was performed in October 1998

1514 November 1998

Work performed during November 1998 included

bull removal of approximately 15 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated seep sediments bull disposal of sediments at Waste Management Disposal Services of Maine Norridgewock Maine

9606401 7SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 15: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

2 PROJECT RECORDS

Project records are the written documentation of the completed work Specific references are made herein to Appendix sections containing the supporting information for the described topic

21 FIELD REPORTS

Field reports were prepared by the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor each day during construction activity The field reports provide a general summary the weather conditions labor equipment work performed testing and special issues A specific format of field report presentation was not required by the specifications or CQA Plan Within individual reports there are variations of information presentation as vell as incomplete or missing information In view of the fact that the daily reports are general summaries of activities incomplete information contained within or missing from these reports is considered insignificant and no effort as made to amend previous prepared daily reports for inclusion into this document

211 Woodard amp Curran

DaiK reports and weekly summaries ere prepared by the Resident Project Representative and provided to the EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection during the progress of the construction Copies of the daily reports appear in Appendix Al - Woodard amp Curran - Dailj Reports Each week a WeekK Report summarizing the past weeks activity was prepared by the Resident Project Representative Copies of these reports appear in Appendix A2 - Woodard amp Curran - Weekly Reports

212 HE Sargent

DaiK reports of the construction work were prepared by the contractor H E Sargent Copies of these daily reports appear in Appendix A3 - H E Sargent Inc - Dailj Reports

22 CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

Construction meetings were held at the project site throughout the duration of the construction project Meetings ere generally held each Thursday morning during the construction activity Preconstruction meetings for the project and for the geomembrane installation were also held Agendas for the meetings were prepared one daj prior and notes recorded at the meeting Commencing with September 25 1997 weekl notes notes ere distributed at the following weeks meeting Prior to this date notes were retained in the files and not circulated

Copies of the agendas and meeting notes appear in Appendix Bl - Meeting Notes

23 CHANGE IN WORK DIRECTIVES

A Change in Work Directive (CWD) as a mechanism to incorporate construction or design changes into the project documentation CWDs through number 49 were issued for the project Some CWDs were modified following their initial approval CWDs hich modified earlier issues have a letter following the number For example CWD 6 was further modified and then approved as CWD 6A with later

9606401 8 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 16: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

modification 6B also issued The term revision (rev) is used to describe CWDs which were revised for approval in response to regulatory agency comments

Copies of the CWDs letters from EPA regarding CWD acceptance and a summary of all CWDs appear in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives

24 SUBMTTTAL LOG

Submittals of materials product data equipment procedures and other pertinent information required of the Contractor were reviewed during the course of the work Each submittal review status and action was recorded in a submittal log A copy of the submittal log appears in Appendix B3 - Submittal Log

25 RECORD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS amp CQA PLAN

The technical specifications and CQA Plan used for construction of the landfill cap have been revised to include changes resulting from bid addenda regulatory agency comments and CWDs issued This revised document appears in Appendix B4 - Record Technical Specifications

26 RECORD DRAWINGS

The Construction Drawings issued for the project have been revised to reflect the completed project Photo-reduced copies of these appear Appendix B5 - Record Drawings Full size (24 by 36) Record Drawings are provided under separate cover with this report

A Geomembrane Record Drawing showing the placement of the geomembrane panels and the destructive seam test locations is presented within Volumes 3 and 4 - Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report prepared by JampL Engineering Inc Additional diagrams with geomembrane panel data appear within Volume 5 - Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System by GeoSyntec Consultants

27 PHOTOS

Photographs of some significant events during the construction project are provided in Appendix B6 shyPhotos Additional photos of the geosynthetics work are included in Volume 4 Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Report and Volume 5 the Report of Supplemental Geomembrane CQA

9606401 9SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 17: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

3 WASTE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION

One aspect of the NTCRA was to excavate the wastes from outside of the landfill limits and move the waste to locations in Landfill 3 and 4 for eventual coverage by the landfill cap Four waste disposal locations outside of the Landfill 3 and 4 boundary were identified during the NTCRA design stages of the project For purposes of identification these locations are called Waste Removal Areas (WRA) and have been assigned letters A B C and D In addition removal of arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook occurred in December 1996 These seep sediments were excavated and relocated to Landfill 3 at a disposal location depicted on the Plan sheets Additional non-hazardous seep sediments were excavated in November 1998 and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility in Nomdgewock Maine

Locations of each WRA and the seep area can be referenced on Plan Sheet 2 - Area Site Plan

In each WRA vastes and soil were excavated to what appeared to be native soils Upon completion of the excavation removal the excavations were made available to the EPA for observation and for concurrence that waste materials had been removed to native soils

The NTCRA design did not require identification of the waste materials hich were relocated No information regarding the relocated astes or their composition is provided

31 WRA A

Excavation of WRA A began June 30 1997 and was completed July 7 1997 During this activity monitoring ell 95-3S as removed because this shallov well vas set into the soil and aste which vere excavated

Upon completion of the removal the excavation was refilled with borrow soil and final grades established One large concrete mass in excess of one cubic gtard m size was allowed to remain within the excavation The block was moved to ensure no waste was present below the block Afterwards this block was buned within the refill soil approximate) 15 feet northeast of monitoring well 95-3R

32 WRA B

WRA B is adjacent to Landfill 3 on the northwestern comer of the landfill

Excavation of WRA B began June 24 1997 and was completed shortly thereafter Borrow soil was placed in the lowest area of the excavation to restore surface drainage The surface was seeded and mulched to establish vegetation

33 WRA C

WRA C was an extension of Landfill 3 in a southerly direction

Waste removal in WRA C began June 20 1997 and was completed June 24 1997 In portions of WRA C it was necessary to remove material to the underlying bedrock Upon completion of the removal

9606401 10 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 18: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

excavation the excavation was refilled with borrow soil to grades necessary for surface water drainage Soil surfaces were covered with topsoil and seeded The bedrock was left exposed

34 WRA D

WRA D is located separately from Landfills 3 and 4 along the easterly side of the entrance road to the site

In preparation for excavation trees and brush were cut however stumps were left in-place to be removed with the wastes Waste removal excavation began June 26 1997 and was completed July 2 1997 The final surface was graded to promote water drainage and seeded to establish vegetation

35 WASTE REGRADING

The landfill waste mass required reshaping to create the initial base which later provided suitable slopes for stability and drainage This work was accomplished by pushing of wastes or by excavating and hauling these wastes to other locations within the landfill Wastes transferred within the landfill during the regrading were compacted upon placement

36 SEEP SEDIMENT REMOVAL

In December 1996 arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and consolidation within the Landfill Area 3 This sediment removal action was a first step of the NTCRA to limit exposure to site related contaminates

Removal of the contaminated sediments was accomplished by procedures presented within the Design Work Plan for Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill December 12 1997 appearing in Appendix El The overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control create access to the area stage the construction then systematically excavate the sediments and haul them to a disposal location on Landfill Area 3 Clean refill soils were placed within the excavated area graded and the surface stabilized

The work activity of sediment removal occurred from December 12 1996 through January 9 1997 Information documenting the sediment removal activity memos wetland report and analytical test data are presented in Appendix E2 - Sediment Removal Action Supporting Documents

In November 1998 a second sediment removal action was conducted Arsenic contaminated sediments from a seep area adjacent to Sandy Brook were mitigated by excavation and off site disposal Removal of the sediments was accomplished by procedures presented in the Design Work Plan for the Sediment Removal Action Saco Municipal Landfill October 1998 and included in appendix El Similar to the December 1996 sediment removal action the overall approach was to implement erosion and sediment control and systematically excavate the contaminated sediments and dispose off-site at an appropriate landfill Sediments were tested for hazardous waste characteristics and found to be non-hazardous material Clean refill soil were placed within the excavated area and mulch applied to the surface

The work activity for this sediment removal occurred on November 3 1998 Excavated sediments were stored on-site in roll-off containers until January 7 1999 Analytical results indicated the sediments to be

9606401 11 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 19: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

non-hazardous and on January 4 1999 a Solid Waste License was approved allowing the off-site disposal of these sediments at a solid waste landfill disposal facility in Norridgewock Maine Information documenting the sediment removal activity are presented in Appendix E2

9606401 12 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 20: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

4 LANDFILL CAP

Cap design and construction provides for gas release from the wastes subsurface drainage of water above the barrier layer surface drainage of precipitation and a stabilized final surface to protect against erosion

41 PASSIVE GAS VENTING

The landfill cap design incorporated venting structures to collect gas generated from the decomposition of wastes and allow the gas to exit through the cap while preventing a reverse flow of water into the landfill

411 Vents

A total of 20 gas vent structures were installed in the landfill prior to the placement of the barrier layer The gas vents consist of two components a passive collection section buried within the wastes and the vent piping to the atmosphere Perforated piping nine feet below the surface of the landfill is surrounded by a crushed stone and geotextile fabric envelope which passively collect the gases These gases are then vented up through a solid wall pipe which extends six to ten feet above the surface of the landfill

CWDs 25A and 25B allowed dimensional changes to the gas vent riser pipe the soil mound at its base its geomembrane boot and the alignment relative to the vertical position

412 Ambient Air Monitoring

The Air Monitoring Program for Landfill 3 and 4 vas performed on July 2 1998 The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix H - the Landfill 3 amp 4 Air Sampling Report The testing detected acetone and ethanol at levels well below the most stringent 8-hour exposure standards No other compounds tested were detected

42 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

The cap drainage layer consists of sand and perforated pipes placed above the barrier layer Water within the drainage layer is discharged from pipe outlets and a riprap drainage zone located around the perimeter of the cap

421 Drainage Layer

The drainage layer consists of a sand drainage layer and perforated piping installed on top of the geomembrane The pipes discharge to surface locations around the perimeter of the landfill Plan Sheet 5A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings shows the locations of the underdrain pipes installed within the drainage sand layer of the cap

Per design requirements the drainage pipes located at the bottom of each slope bench are placed within an envelope of geotextile fabric and crushed stone The drainage pipes located at intervals between slope benches consists of perforated pipe which is wrapped in a geotextile fabric No crushed stone surrounds these pipes

9606401 13 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 21: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

422 Cover Termination

The cover termination design provides for the release of water from the cap drainage layer The majority of the termination construction detail has a riprap stone layer in hydraulic contact with the drainage layer Water from the drainage sand passes into the riprap stone exits the stone and subsequently becomes surface water One segment of cover termination between perimeter stations 19+75 to 25+50 does not have the riprap layer In this section of cover termination perforated piping within the drainage layer is primary point of release for the drainage layer water Refer to CWD 13 for detailing of this particular termination and sheet 5A - Record Drawings Appendix B5 for station locations

Perforated piping within the drainage layer provides another means of releasing water from the drainage layer These pipes day light to the surface at intervals around the perimeter of the landfill From observation of the pipe outlets following an extended period of rainfall during June 1998 water was flowing from the pipes which connect to slope bench piping at stations 0+00 16+70 and 28+00 Very low flows were observed from pipes at 9+83 12+37 and 19+50 Other pipe outlets were dry This observation indicates the primary release of drainage layer water at the cap termination is through the riprap drainage zone and the drainage pipe outlets are a secondary release point

The cover termination received major design changes during the course of construction CWDs 13 14 and 23 revised the riprap and drainage piping in termination Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for additional information

43 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Specific construction issues were identified for the slope benches downdrain channels perimeter channels and culverts which provide surface drainage These are described below

431 Slope Benches

Slope bench channels convey the flow in controlled manner to the dovndrain channels or to surface drainage channels along the perimeter of the cap

Construction of barrier soil to obtain the slope bench V geometry proved to be difficult Significant efforts by the contractor were applied in Test Pads 2 and 3 to be able to demonstrate successful construction A design change with smoother angular transitions was issued as CWD 9 to improve the slope bench construction

The construction of the slope bench channels resulted in variation of the side slopes CWD 24 provided allowable tolerances for channel width depth and side slopes which fulfill the design requirements for capacity

At the time of Substantial Completion inspections portions of the slope bench channels contained sediment deposition within the riprap stone CWD 43 was produced to establish an acceptable depth of these sediments deposits The sediment deposits were removed to the acceptable level before final completion by flushing with water from a hose and using hand tools

9606401 14 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 22: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Refer to Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for copies of CWD 9 24 and 43

432 Downdrain Channels

Downdrains are the gabion mat lined channels which convey stormwater down the steepest slope gradients of the cap

A design issue existed relative to the construction at the confluence of the slope bench channel with the downdrain Here a riprap stone channel blends into the gabion mat channel Concern had been raised by the MEDEP as to whether the riprap stones at the confluence would move with the water flow Observation of the location upon spring thaw and during two heavy precipitation events has not found movement of the riprap stones As such it is proposed to leave the channel intersection as constructed

Inspections also found subtle variations in the width and depth of the downdrains CWD 31 provides the acceptance of the observed channel dimensions Reference Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

The Contract Drawings required a gabion wall at the toe of the slope of the downdrain channel on the east side of the landfill After the gabion wall was installed by the Contractor a non-conformance was observed in that the required amount of fasteners were not installed in the gabion baskets The Contractors proposed solution to this problem was to install an additional gabion wall in front of the non-conforming wall rather than dismantle and re-do the existing work This proposal was submitted as CWD 29B was accepted and the additional work was performed to rectify the non-conformance

433 Perimeter channels

Perimeter drainage channels are the water conveyances which exist around a majority of the cap termination Details of cap termination construction provide information regarding construction of the channels

Two CWDs were issued for the perimeter drainage channels CWD 32 was issued to address and accept drainage channel side slopes that were different than original design CWD 49 was issued to address stabilization of channel segments where establishing vegetation was difficult due to the frequent presence of water Stone lining was provided in the bottom portions of the perimeter channels experiencing the problem

434 Culvert Pipes

The culvert pipes installations and associated riprap aprons plunge pools and manholes were observed to have disparities from the design plans CWDs 35 36 37 38 and 39 appearing in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives address this issue with changes and acceptance criteria for the culvert pipe systems and their inlet-outlet stabilization The Record Drawings Appendix B5 contain the as-built elevations of the culvert pipe inverts

9606401 13 051299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 23: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

44 SURFACE STABILIZATION

The surface of the landfill was permanently stabilized by the growth of vegetation and the use of riprap stone and gabion baskets in drainage conveyances Prior to the growth of vegetation on the cover erosion was prevented by the placement of erosion control blanket placed over the topsoil and seed layer on the entire landfill cap With the growth of the vegetative root mat the slopes were stabilized Drainage conveyances were lined with riprap stone and at the main downdrains gabion baskets were installed to provide long term protection against erosion

45 LANDFILL CAP SOILS

Soils comprised a significant component of the landfill cap design A brief description of the soil source for each cap layer and the tests performed to qualify the soil material are described in the following sections

451 Base Cover Soil

The base cover soil was used to cover wastes and to fill irregularities providing a smooth surface for the subsequent gas transmission layer Base cover soil was applied in sufficient thickness to cover the underlying wastes

The base cover soil was obtained from the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property Seven samples were collected from the delivered soils and tested for gradation The base cover soil generally consisted of a fine silty sand and is similar in gradation to select borrow which was obtained from the same pit

452 Gas Transmission Sand

The gas transmission sand was obtained by the Contractor from the Fenderson Pit on State Route 5 Saco Maine

Seven samples were collected from test pit excavations at the source pit on July 8 1997 and another 13 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material All soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and physical properties One source sample 127 exhibited marginal hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec nearly equal to the specified 00010 cmsec requirement The marginal hydraulic conductivity of source sample 127 is described in Section 723

Copies of a summary of the test data and met the laboratory reports for the gas transmission sand appear in Appendix C2 - Gas Transmission Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

453 Barrier Soil

Barrier soil provided for the project consisted of a silty clay soil obtained from a geologic soil deposit locally known as the Presumpscot Formation

Two soil source locations were required to complete the project These are identified as the Watson Pit and the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 16^ ~ OJ1299 Sraquoco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 24: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

4531 Watson Pit

The Watson Pit was located on the westerly side of Louden Road in Saco Maine This pit provided barrier soil used for the project during the period of July 28 to September 17 1997

Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report provides details of the soil source exploration and testing program Zone of Acceptance (ZOA) development and construction procedures used for the Watson Pit barrier soil As described in the report a ZOA for the Watson Pit barrier soil was established using compaction hydraulic conductivity and shear strength data as specified

Project design anticipated that measurement of in place soil moisture content using a nuclear device could produce erroneous results due to properties of the soils machine calibration and other factors Accurate moisture content measurements were imperative because testing and acceptance of soil moisture relied heavily upon the nuclear device From testing activity performed on Test Pad 1 in place measurement of the barrier soil moisture content by nuclear method produced results which were generally lower than the laboratory test method ASTM D-2216 A means to correct for the difference in test methods was implemented CWDs 6A and 6B provide discussion of the procedures used to provide quality assurance of the barrier soil moisture content by confirming the validity of the nuclear test device results Refer to these CWDs in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for more information

During placement of the Watson soil it became evident that the Watson Pit had variations in material properties which influenced the compaction of the soil As additional soils data became available it was determined there was greater variability of the soil source than had been identified by the source testing program Section 719 of this report provides further information about the variation Modification of the ZOA was necessary to provide acceptance criteria for barrier soil not qualified in the original source testing program Change in Work Directive 21 was issued to expand the Watson soil ZOA Figure 1 shows the original and expanded ZOA for the Watson Pit soil

9606401 17 051299 Sico F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 25: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

FIGURE 1 WATSON PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S a c o Landfil l C losure W a t s o n Pit Bar r ie r Soil

O r ig ina l amp E x p a n d e d 2OA

L l n laquo ol 0 print urn I ^

I5H Ln bull 0 phM um I

Ongmit shyZ O A

180 70 0 22 0

M oliturlaquo C on t fn l ( )

4532 Cole Dairy Pit

The first barrier soil source known as the Watson Pit contained insufficient soil material to complete the compacted soil barrier layer The contractor HE Sargent promptly located another soil source known as the Cole Dairy Pit in Dayton Maine and performed preliminary sampling Observed properties and laboratory testing of the preliminary sample indicated a clay material having suitable gradation and hydraulic conductivity for use as a barrier soil Subsequently a source exploration program was done on September 6 1997 Laboratory testing was performed following the requirements of specification Section 02200 306B All tests results from the soil source samples indicated the soils met specified requirements and were favorable for use as the compacted barrier layer A ZOA for the specific soil source was developed from the test program Figure 2 shows the ZOA for the barrier soil obtained at the Cole Dairy Pit

9606401 18 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 26: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

FIGURE 2 COLE DAIRY PIT ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE

S i c o L a n d f i l l C l o s u r e Cole Da i ry Pit B a r r i e r So i l

20 A

108

I 1degdeg

bull IH Lin laquor 0 Dlm urn i

1QH I 09 cm

21 21 24 25

M o l t t u r C e n t t n l ( )

The Cole Dairy Pit provided the barrier soil from September 20 1997 to the completion of the project Approximately 15000 cubic yards of this soil as installed

4533 Test Pad Reports

Test Pads were constructed to verify that the materials and construction procedures used were capable of producing a soil barrier that achieved the desired low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on the Test Pads 1 and 4 to verify the relationship between the moisture content density and the hydraulic conductivity of the installed soil Test Pads 2 and 3 were primarily used to evaluate construction methods and did not include hydraulic conductivity tests Refer to Appendix C3 shyBarrier Soil Test Pad Hydraulic Conductivity

45331 Test Pads 1 amp2

Documentation for the Test Pads 1 and 2 appear in Appendix Dl - Barrier Soil and Test Pad Construction Report (Amended) The report is amended in that it contains text and data provided as response to comments from EPA via TRC Environmental dated July 16 1997

9606401 19 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 lldoc

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 27: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

The first two test pads revealed potential difficulties with construction and in the testing methods Equipment used to construct the barrier layer affected the barrier soil Placed lift thickness variation occurred at both the top surface and at the gas sand interface below Construction of slope bench geometry was also affected by the type and size of equipment used Heavy rolling equipment tended to move the soil and change its geometry

Testing of density and moisture content of the barrier soil Shelby tube sampling of soil distorted the specimens during the sampling and testing procedure thus affecting the sample volume Whereas measurement of soil density was not the intent of the shelby tube samples this was not a critical measurement and density measurements of soil samples obtained from shelby tubes were not used for comparison with nuclear density measurements made in the field A similar condition was found with using the sand cone test method to determine in place soil density The soil distorted into the test hole dug during the test affecting the sample volume measurement Changes to testing procedures contained within CWD 6 eliminated use of the sand cone test method

45332 Test Pad 3

Test Pad 3 was constructed within the production placement of the first barrier soil on the landfill Its pnmarv purpose was to demonstrate the construction of a slope bench with the bamer soil layer the process used to protect installed bamer soil and verification of soil moisture content measured by nuclear method The approach to performing Test Pad 3 appears in Appendix D2 - Test Pad 3 Activities and Work Plan

A construction difficulty encountered by the Contractor was the ability to construct the slope bench in accordance ith the plans and specifications A high level of effort was necessary The use of an excavator with a flexible wnst grading bucket did allow the required V geometry to be formed in the bamer soil lagtcr However the surface of the clav would have required additional work to prepare it to a geomembrane ready surface Additional) placement of the geomembrane in the V ditch would have consistent) resulted in bridging of the geomembrane which would have resulted in a non-conformance Eentuall) CWD 9 was issued changing the geometn of the slope bench to a shape more easil) constructed

An EPA correspondence of August 1 1997 provides concurrence that Test Pad 3 was constructed in accordance with the Work Plan and demonstrated slope bench configuration could be achieved Refer to CWDs 5 6 and 6A contained in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives for the changes resulting from Test Pad 3 execution

45333 Test Pad 4

Test Pad 4 was constructed on September 18 and 19 1997 to test and demonstrate installation of the Cole Dairy- Pit barrier soil source described in Section 4 53 2 of this report would achieve requirements specified for the project Test Pad 4 was constructed per specifications and CQA Plan No separate work plan or report for Test Pad 4 was prepared

Test Pad 4 pass-fail acceptance was based on a proposed ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit soil which was later modified following the outcome of the test pad work During execution of Test Pad 4 on the first lift of bamer soil Field MoistureDensity Test 498 was taken and was initially determined to be a failing

9606401 20 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 28: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

test because the measured density of 982 pcf was below the allowable minimum of the then proposed ZOA for this soil source The Contractor performed additional compactive effort on the area and Test 500 was performed as a retest of Test 498 The density went up slightly to 989 pcf but the moisture content went down to 203 Moisture content was below the minimum 21 allowable for the proposed ZOA Upon completing Test Pad 4 the proposed ZOA was modified to accept lower soil densities and Test 498 then became a passing test in this modified final ZOA The lower than specified moisture content of test 500 was accepted in light of the previous passing test because this particular test was used in a Test Pad circumstance to determine if additional compactor passes increased soil density Although test 500 is formally a non-conformance it does not indicate a lack of quality in the installed barrier material layer

Refer to Change in Work Directive 22 contained in Appendix B2 for the discussion and results of Test Pad 4

4534 Barrier Soil Variants

An empirical evaluation of the barrier soil source in place data and ZOA suggests the soil sources contained variations of the Presumpscot Soil Formation which include both silts and clays

The Watson Pit appears to have contained silt and clay variations both being able to yield a low hydraulic conductivity when compacted The variation identified as silt had higher maximum dry densities (circa 110 lbft3) and lower optimum moisture contents (circa 18) as well as lower plastic indexes (circa 12) and lower percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 35) The variation with a higher clay fraction had lower maximum dry densities (circa 100 lbft3) and higher optimum moisture contents (circa 21) as well as higher plastic indexes (circa 16 to 20) and higher percentages of the 0002 mm particle size (circa 50)

The variation of the Watson Pit source was most apparent on material installed within Work Areas 2 and 5 in the general southeast quadrant of the Landfill 4 Here the Watson soil appeared to have compacted thoroughly provided a firm surface yet remained outside the ZOA Collection of additional soils samples found further evidence of variation in the soil properties Change in Work Directive 21 presents a discussion of the Watson Soil variation and an expansion of the Watson Pit ZOA to address the variation

Per the criteria above soils from the Cole Dairy Pit would qualify as a clay variation The Cole Dairy-soils did not exhibit the silt variations observed with the Watson Pit soil

454 Drainage Sand

Drainage sand provided for the project by the Contractor was obtained from Dayton Sand and Gravel Dayton Maine The drainage sand is a manufactured soil material typically used for concrete

Nine samples of the sand were obtained from the source pile on July 11 1997 and another 22 samples were collected from the delivered and placed material The soil samples exhibited very similar gradation hydraulic conductivity and properties Gradation testing indicated all particles to be less than 38-inch size All samples conformed to specified requirements

Copies of a summary of the test data for the drainage sand with the supporting laboratory reports appear in Appendix C4 - Drainage Sand The results of the in place density and moisture content with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

9606401 21 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 29: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

455 Select Borrow

Select borrow soil was obtained from two sources One source was the City Borrow Pit located on the landfill site property The other source was an extension of an existing soils pit on the abutting Patterson property to the southwest of the landfill Although the soil was obtained from two locations that are approximately 1500 feet distant from each other the soil was of similar geologic origin and exhibited similar gradations and proctor test results Overall the soil would classify as a fine silty sand

Eleven samples were collected from the soil delivered to the landfill and tested for gradation Eight of the samples also had proctor tests performed

Copies of a summary of the test data and the laboratory reports for the select borrow appear in Appendix C5 - Select Borrow The results of the in-place density and moisture content tests with their locations appears in Appendix C8 - In-Place Tests of Soil Moisture amp Density

456 Topsoil

Topsoil used for the landfill cap was a blended mixture of municipal wastewater compost and borrow soil Data regarding the composition of the compost and the nutrient content of the mixed topsoil (before fertilizer amendment) appears in Appendix C7 - Compost amp Topsoil

9606401 22 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 30: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

5 GEOSYNTHETICS DOCUMENTATION

Construction quality assurance testing and inspection of the geotextile fabrics and geomembrane liner components were performed on the project in general conformance with the requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project The CQA Plan required that the geomembrane and geotextile material and installation quality assurance be provided by a qualified independent Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative The Geosynthetics CQA Representative for this project was JampL Engineering Inc of Canonsburg Pennsylvania

A general description of the geosynthetic materials used on this project is the following

All geomembrane products utilized for this project were manufactured by Columbia Geosystems Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of National Seal Company The geomembrane product installed as the barrier material was Geodex Friction Seal a textured surface LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 60 mil thickness Geodex Friction Seal LLDPE geomembrane of nominal 40 mil thickness was used in slope bench and downdrain channel construction as indicated on the plan drawings

The woven type geotextile fabric utilized for the project was model 700X manufactured by Mirafi The 700X geotextile fabric was generally installed in areas off of the landfill cap beneath riprap stone protection used for drainage channels and culvert outlet protection areas

Non-woven type geotextile fabrics installed were models 180N and the 1160N manufactured by Mirafi The primary use of these fabrics was the separation of soils in drainage layer applications

51 JampL ENGINEERING INC CERTIFICATION REPORT

Material acceptance and installation certification of the geosynthetic components are provided in a separate document Geosynthetics Construction Documentation and Certification Saco Municipal Landfill Closure prepared by JampL Engineering Inc which is presented as Volumes 3 and 4 of this report The roles and responsibilities of the Geosynthetics Construction Quality Assurance Representative for this project are described in the CQA Plan incorporated into the technical specifications of the project and they are outlined in the Certification Report by JampL Engineering Inc JampL Engineering provided a full-time resident project representative during the placement of geosynthetic materials documented the testing of geomembrane materials and installation reviewed the Contractors geosynthetic submittals recommended solutions to geosynthetic construction issues and provided the certification of the geosynthetic installation

After the preliminary Certification report from JampL Engineering was reviewed it was determined that portions of the required documentation of the geomembrane installation was not recorded and that decisions were made by JampL Engineering which did not fully conform with the requirements of the CQA Plan Although JampL Engineering and the Contractors geomembrane installer were positive that all the required testing was performed and that the geomembrane installation was of very high quality the missing documentation and other non-conformance issues resulted in significant questions about the quality of the geomembrane installation Further information about the geomembrane installation non-conformance appears within Section 722

9606401 23 031299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 31: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Notwithstanding the non-conformance issues with the geomembrane installation the testing and documentation provided by JampL Engineering includes most of the geosynthetic documentation required by the CQA Plan The geosynthetic certification report includes the following data subgrade approval forms geomembrane conformance testing results geomembrane panel placement and seam testing logs tnal weld records repair logs and field destructive test records geomembrane destructive laboratory test records geotextile conformance testing results daily field activity logs construction photographs geosynthetic engineer certification statement and record drawing The JampL Engineering report also addresses several of the non-conformance issues

52 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

GeoSyntec Consultants from Atlanta Georgia was retained by Woodard amp Curran to perform an independent review of the JampL Engineering report and tcr make recommendations for obtaining supplemental information for Woodard amp Curran to certify the final cover system construction This action was necessary because of apparent discrepancies and deficient documentation provided within JampL Engineering report

The specific non-conformance issues and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants in Volume 5 titled Supplemental Geomembrane CQA Final Cover System Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine GeoSjntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program performed field testing of production seams and presented their findings

Findings of the review provided by GeoSyntec Consultants indicated that no further actions were required for geomembrane testing geomembrane deployment or geomembrane trial welding Their supplemental field testing had increased confidence in the integrity of the geomembrane seams to an acceptable level Certification of the geomembrane installation by Woodard amp Curran is linked to the summary and conclusions provided by GeoSyntec Consultants

9606401 24 051299 Sraquoo F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 32: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

6 INTERFACE SHEAR TEST

Project specifications required interface direct shear testing for interfaces within the cover system using the materials incorporated into the landfill cap

Testing of the sand - geomembrane interface and the Watson Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts Testing of the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil - geomembrane interface were performed by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Both laboratories are Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified for the ASTM D5321 test procedure use

The results of the laboratory testing for the interfaces are presented in Appendix C9 - Interface Shear Test Reports

61 SAND - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2 Figure 3 shows the shear strength envelope for the drainage sand to textured geomembrane contact

FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE SAND - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

Inttrfaci Shtar Tlaquoit Dralnaglaquo Sand (sect105 Molrtun 1 98 7 pcf jgalnit LLDPE

PlaquolaquoX Strength

Rnldutl Strength

04an Strength

200 400 500

Nomvl SlrM

9606401 25 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 33: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

62 BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE

The interface shear strength between the drainage sand and geomembrane sheet was tested for a normal stress range of 100 to 800 lbft2

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the shear strength envelopes for the Watson Pit barrier soil to textured geomembrane contact for two soil moisture contents 24 and 25 respectfully

FIGURE 4 WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

24 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfaci Sfmr Test

Watson Barralr Soil ft 24 Molstun I 97 pcf igalnst LLDPE Otomtmbran

I Dwign Slrwigh

Slrmgth bullR Q

fi K

tOO 200 300 400 SCO laquo00 TOO tOO HO 1000

NormaJ ItrMi fplaquof)

9606401 051299 SacoF-CERT 02-99 II doc

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 34: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

FIGURES WATSON BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

25 SOIL MOISTURE Inttrfac Shtar Ttst

Watson Barrttr Soil (g 23 Moisture I 37 pcf against LLDPE Otomambran

390

I W

Z vgt a

sco eco

laquo (pcf)

The plots show a decrease in shear strength resulting from increasing soil moisture From the testing program data it was concluded that adequate interface strength would be maintained at a soil moisture content of 24 The upper moisture content limit allowed by the ZOA for the Watson barrier soil was set at 23

Figure 6 and Figure 1 show the shear strength envelopes for the Cole Dairy Pit barrier soil to textured geomcmbrane contact for two soil moisture contents 27 and 28 respectfully

9606401 27 051299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 35: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

FIGURE 6 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

27 SOIL MOISTURE Interne Shear Ttst

Col Dairy Soil Q 27 Molstura IJ2 pcf agalnrt LLDPE 0ommbran

RlaquogtUulaquol SWngtti Design Stnngth

z in

ICO 200 300 400 500 9CO 700 BOO SOO 1000

FIGURE 7 COLE DAIRY BARRIER SOIL - GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH

28 SOIL MOISTURE Interface Shlaquoar Ttit

Colt Dairy Soil copy 28A Moliturt I 32 pcf ayalnit LLDPE Glaquoomlaquombrane

S 250

0 100 200 300 400 900 laquo0 700 800 WO 1000

NormW SlrMf (plf)

9606401 031299

Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 36: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

The plots show that the peak strength is similar for both 27 and 28 soil moisture however there is a decrease in residual shear strength with increasing moisture Based upon this data the acceptable upper limit of barrier soil moisture defined by the ZOA for the Cole Dairy Pit was established at 27

9606401 29Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 37: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

7 SPECIAL ISSUES amp NON-CONFORMANCE

The special issues in Section 71 presents particular events or changes that had occurred during the execution of the work Section 72 non-conformance includes presentation and resolution of nonshyconforming items which were not addressed by rework or replacement and correction

71 SPECIAL ISSUES

This Special Issues section refers to topics that were identified during the execution of the NTCRA design and construction that required supplementary attention The Special Issues result from design approval conditions by EPA observation of the work unanticipated circumstances accidents or other causes

711 Landfill 2

Landfill 2 is a previously closed Municipal Solid Waste located on the same City of Saco land parcel as Landfills 3 and 4 Repairs and improvements to Landfill 2 cap were included in the construction contract for the cap of Landfills 3 and 4 Although part of the construction contract the Landfill 2 work is independent of the NTCRA design and is not elaborated on further in this document

712 Waste Stumps

On July 10 1997 it as observed that site clearing activities were producing a large quantity of tree stumps Some stumps were also being uncovered during waste relocation activities Concern was raised that the placement of whole tree stumps into the landfill would cause voids upon decomposition and this would have potential to introduce settlement and stress on the cover system

To address the concern all stumps exposed by waste grading or clearing activity were temporarily stockpiled together On September 10 1997 a tub grinder machine was used to shred the collected tree stumps The ood shreds were then dispersed into the waste mass primarily within Work Area 5 before placement of base cover soil

713 Frost Protection

Condition 2 of EPA approval of the NTCRA design as issued July 10 1997 required the thickness of the cap above the geomembrane shall be at least 36 inches on all north facing slopes and at least 30 inches on all other areas This condition was included in the approval of the design to ensure adequate frost protection was provided

For purposes of implementing the approval condition a north south dividing line also called the Mason-Dixon line was produced to distinguish the division of the two cap thickness This line appears on Record Drawings Plan Sheet 5A Appendix B6 - Record Drawings The thickness of the select borrow layer of the cap design was increased on the north side of the line to implement the requirement stated above

9606401 30 Oi1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 38: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

714 In-PIace Measurements of Barrier Soil Moisture

Moisture content of the in-place barrier soil was determined by two methods nuclear device method [ASTM D3017] and laboratory determination by drying [ASTM D2216] The purpose of the two methods was to provide quality assurance by a comparative means of identifying erroneous readings from the nuclear device as well as providing a means to calibrate the nuclear device

Efforts to compare barrier soil moisture commenced during the implementation of Test Pad 1 and continued throughout the installation of barrier soil CWDs 6 6A and 6B presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives discuss the comparative method the data the results and provide revision of the specifications to accomplish the quality assurance of barrier soil moisture content measurement

Appendix C3 - Barrier Soil Moisture Content Comparisons provides a summary of all paired moisture content measurements statistics of the collected data and graphic plots of the paired data

715 Geotextile Fabric

Non-conforming geotextile fabrics were identified through conformance testing of the delivered materials The non-conformance was specific to identifiable material production lots

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 180N lot 646 determined non-conformance with AOS grab elongation and trapezoidal tear properties The AOS non-conformance was resolved by retesting where 15 of 15 samples retested positive and thus were accepted Change in Work Directives 16 17 19 and 20 were issued to clarify the design intent and permit acceptance of the material relative to the other non-conforming properties

Conformance testing of Mirafi geotextile model 1160N lot 613 determined non-conformance with permitivitty specifications As a result this lot of material was rejected and not used in the construction nor incorporated into the work

716 Geomembrane Bridging

Geomembrane bridging is tensioning of the sheet resulting from temperature changes and contraction of the material Geomembrane installed at a warm temperature shrinks when cooled

Bridging of the geomembrane was primarily observed in the slope benches following the first two geomembrane installation events At the time the bridging was observed the geomembrane had not been covered with soil The geomembrane installer adjusted sand bag ballast weighting tensioned sections and unweighting loose ends permitting the free ends to move slightly and relieve tension areas Tension was also released as the geomembrane expanded as it warmed during the day The drainage sand layer was not installed over the geomembrane until the bridging was removed

717 Fuel Spill

A vehicle accident on September 22 1997 involving a road sweeper and the water truck resulted in a fuel being spilled from the water truck fuel tank The accident and spill occurred on the southerly access road downhill of MW-95-8R

9606401 31 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 39: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

Authorities were notified of the spill and cleanup activity of the spilled fuel immediately followed the accident

718 Leachate Breakouts

Following completion of waste grading and base cover soil placement but prior to barrier soil installation breakouts of leachate were observed in the general area of the slope bench down hill of gas vent 12 This location is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A It was believed that the breakout was a result of open base cover soils and uphill gas vent construction present at this stage of construction which were allowing infiltration of precipitation into the waste as well as the release of leachate to the surface Restrictive layers in the waste mass may have also prevented downward movement of the leachate thus allowing lateral flow of leachate The situation was an interim condition of the construction sequence which would be eliminated by completion of the cap and removal of the infiltration recharge

To address the situation on September 30 1997 wastes in the area of the seep were excavated and the excavation filled with crushed stone The objective was to prevent the breakout of leachate until subsequent construction of the cap could occur This created a very permeable zone within the waste mass allowing the leachate to remain within the waste Observation of the seep area after replacement of the base cover soil indicated the work was effective for the intended purpose

719 Sediment Basin

A Sediment Retention Basin downhill of the landfill work provided the capture of sediment laden runoff water from a majority of the site under construction No outlet structure was operated during the construction work thus allowing no release of water from the basin In time significant amounts of sediments and water accumulated in the basin

Starting September 30 1997 a pumping operation commenced to lower the water level and provide access to remove the sediment accumulation Water was initially pumped to WRA C and allowed to flow overland through the forest Observations of the flow were made and the pump operation sequenced to prevent the pumped water from entering Sandy Brook This discharge location required cycling the pump on and off to regulate the discharge flow The quantity of water removed from the basin was not sufficient to lower the basin water level

An alternative solution was implemented Construction of an earthen berm within the on-site borrow pit to provide an alternate storage basin for the sediment laden water ensued A perforated riser pipe outlet structure with sealed outlet holes was also installed in the borrow pit Water was then pumped from the sediment basin into the borrow pit basin This approach allowed complete removal of water from the sediment basin With the sediment basin emptied of water sediments were removed to restore the design elevations for the bottom of the sediment basin The outlet structure was installed on the sediment basin after the sediment removal to provide the ultimate design intent of the sediment basin

On November 4 1997 the Contractor began pumping the silty water from the Sediment Retention Basin to the on-site borrow pit Within hours after the pumping began it was discovered that some of this pumped water was exiting the pit through a breach in a small berm and traveling approximately 1500 feet before reaching Sandy Brook at a location approximately 2000 feet south of the of the landfill site 1000 feet

9606401 32 ~ OJ1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 40: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

downstream of the confluence of Big Ledge Brook and Sandy Brook As soon as this problem was discovered corrective action was taken The pump was immediately turned off and a larger earthen berm was built to contain the water being pumped to the borrow pit

The water removed to the borrow pit basin remained within the pit basin for approximately 90 days to promote settling and clarification of the water At the end of the period the water was tested to verify compliance with ambient water quality standards The outlet structure holes were opened March 7 1998 to allow controlled discharge of the water By May 1998 the pit basin was empty At this time the containment berm was leveled the outlet structure was removed a riprap outlet channel constructed and the surface stabilized with vegetation

7110 Cover Termination

The design termination of the landfill cap was modified to accommodate conditions encountered during the work These conditions being a lack of sufficient elevation difference along the northerly side of the landfill to allow the drainage layer to daylight into perimeter drainage channels an installation of the barrier layer which did not allow the riprap drainage zone to be installed at the appropriate location within the termination and bedrock outcrops which abut the termination and were not anticipated during design Each of the conditions was addressed by CWDs and were characterized as major changes because of the substantial revisions required in the design of the cover termination to accommodate the conditions encountered

Change in Work Directive 13 revises landfill grades for the cover termination on the northerly side of the cover It also includes the installation of drainage pipe extending beneath the access road to a discharge location on the north side of the road A clean out for the pipe is positioned on the southerly side of the road west of Culvert 2 inlet

Further revision of the cover termination detailing is presented in CWDs 14 14A 14B 14C 14C revised 23 23A 28 and 30 as presented in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directives A Termination Detail Summarj Table indicating the stationing for each termination detail appears on Plan Sheet 8 A of Appendix B5 - Record Drawings hile Plan Sheet 5A contains the perimeter stationing of the landfill referenced within the table

7111 Barrier Soil Repair

On September 22 1997 it as observed that the installed geomembrane in Work Area 1 approximately 60 feet uphill of Gas Vent 18 vas damaged The damage consisting of a short tear in the geomembrane apparently occurring from equipment being used to place the drainage sand above the geomembrane

On September 25 1997 work was performed to uncover the geomembrane and determine the cause and extent of the damage The location of this work is shown on the Appendix B5 - Record Drawings sheet 5A Upon removal of the drainage sand surrounding the tear the surface and the underlying barrier soil were observed to have been deformed into ridges valleys and humps The tear in the geomembrane occurred in an area of a hump Upon observing the deformed surface concern developed as to whether the condition was the result of equipment or a slope failure Removal of the geomembrane was necessary to further examine the area and attribute cause

9606401 33 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 II doc

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 41: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

On October 3 1997 the geomembrane above the deformed barrier soil surface was slit open in an H pattern approximately 66 feet long by 35 feet wide and the flaps folded back Upon geomembrane removal it appeared the barrier soil was disturbed by equipment movement and not slope failure This determination resulting from the appearance of parallel ruts similar to what could result from tracked equipment Further exploratory work consisted of excavating the barrier soil in the disturbed region Via the excavation observation of the gas transmission sand-barrier soil interface showed no sign of disturbance or water seepage thus eliminating slope failure or leachate seepage as a possible cause What was observed was a change in the thickness of barrier soil layer from its initial installation and pockets of soft barrier soil located within the second lift of placement From observation of soil conditions it appeared that the second lift of soil had insufficient shear strength to support the equipment operating above The first and third lifts of barrier soil did not exhibit the softness From these observations it was determined that the equipment placing the drainage sand had caused movement of the soft soil pockets within the second barrier soil lift

Repair to the affected area consisted of the removal of all the second and third lifts of barrier soil and most of the third lift within the repair area The removed soil lifts were sequentially replaced with new barrier soil from the Cole Dairy- pit Each lift was individually placed compacted and tested Work to finish the repair consisted of seaming and testing the geomembrane on October 7 1997

Inspection of the barrier soil surface of Work Area 3 found areas where rutting was caused by the tires of the compaction equipment Although the surface was firm it was suspected that the first or second lifts of barrier soil exhibited similar softness described above In order to avoid the condition experienced in Work Area 1 seven discrete areas of soft soil in Work Area 3 were removed and replaced with new lifts of barrier soil obtained from the Cole Dairy pit The specific locations of soil replacements were not recorded

7112 Winter Construction Shutdown

Construction of the NTCRA design continued until December 23 1997 at which time work was suspended for the winter The level of work completed to this date was intended to achieve Substantial Completion

7113 Substantial Completion Inspection amp Punch List

Site inspections for substantial completion were performed by Woodard amp Curran on December 19 1997 by the MEDEP on December 11 16 18 and 19 1997 and by TRC Environmental Corporation on December 18 and 19 1998 Woodard amp Curran presented their inspection findings to the EPA via a December 29 1997 letter submission The MEDEP summarized their inspection findings via a January 15 1998 memorandum while TRC Environmental presented their inspection findings in the Monthly Summary and Substantial Completion Inspection and a technical memorandum both dated January 9 1998

The findings of the three individual substantial completion inspections were combined into a tabular format Punch List indicating the remaining design issues remaining work and non-conformances encountered during these inspections This punch list appears in Appendix F - Punch List

9606401 34SacoF-CERT02-99IIdoc

051299

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 42: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

7114 Work Performed for Completion

Commencing in May 1998 the Contractor completed work on the landfill by performing corrective work of non-conformances identified in the substantial completion inspection in December of 1997 and punch list Corrections to the finish grade were performed on the top of the landfill and on its southeast comer the cover termination at Station 19+75 was brought into conformance with the specifications sediment was cleaned out of the slope benches and other miscellaneous items identified in the punch list were corrected The Contractor completed all of the punch list items On June 19 an inspection of the repairs and clean up activity revealed that additional work was required to complete the project This additional work was performed in July 1998

7115 Final Inspection

Pre-final inspections were performed by the EPA on July 30 1998 and MEDEP on July 17 1998 The principal purpose of the inspection events were to identify any remaining issues to enable corrections or modifications prior to the final inspection of August 27 1998

The Maine DEP inspection on July 17 1998 resulted in a Punch List with 20 items of non-conforming work The Pre-final inspection conducted by EPA on July 30 1998 resulted in a Punch List by TRC Environmental with 14 items The majority of these items had been completed by the final completion date of August 27 1998 At a final inspection on August 26 and 27 the EPA and Maine DEP prepared a Punch List with nine items and the completion date vas extended until September 3 1998 The first two items in this final Punch List described the general non-conformance conditions in the slope benches and a detailed list of 26 locations was prepared by Woodard amp Curran The Punch List items from all of the lists were completed by the deadline Correspondence relating to the final inspections and acceptance are included in Appendix F

72 NON-CONFORMANCES

Each component of the construction was considered to be a non-conformance until construction quality assurance procedures determined that materials or completed work conformed to the design requirements shown on the plans and as specified including approved changes Individual qualifying factors to address those non-conformances which were not addressed by change rework replacement or correction follows

721 Base Cover Soil Sample 240

During progression of the work the grain size of base cover soils were observed to be somewhat different than the specification requirements This issue was addressed by revision of the specification by way of Change in Work Directive 7 which appears in Appendix B2 - Change in Work Directive

Base cover soil sample 240 is identified as a non-conformance issue due to its gradation Acceptance for certification of this item is based upon the required performance standard of an unclassified fill material transmissive to gas providing a suitable subgrade for cover construction

9606401 35 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 43: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

722 Geomembrane Installation

As indicated in Section 5 the specific non-conformance issues of geomembrane installation and their resolution are addressed by GeoSyntec Consultants appearing as Volume 5 of this document GeoSyntec Consultants performed a review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented their findings

The identified geomembrane non-conformance issues and their resolution are summarized below

7221 Trial Welding

Geomembrane trial welding was not performed in strict conformance with the project specifications The times between trial welds occasionally exceeded the maximum of 4 hours and several tests did not include a test for parent material strength In these cases the manufacturers published minimum strengths were used to accept the test weld Because it appeared that test welds were performed and documented on all days that geomembrane was welded and since the data did not show serious problems with the machine performance the test welds met the intent of the CQA Plan

7222 Seam Welding

Documentation of seam welding was missing for 12 of the more than 145 seams on the project This is addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

7223 Non-Destructive Tests

Non-destructive testing of production seams was not documented clearly for over 15 of the seams This is addressed by the GeoSyntecs supplemental testing program

Ten of the non-destructive seam tests were performed at pressures lower than specified Since the pressures were not excessively low and destructive tests at two of the seams tested at low pressures were destructively tested the pressure tests met the intent of the CQA Plan This issue is also addressed by the supplemental testing program by GeoSyntec Consultants

One non-destructive test had a pressure drop of 4 psi instead of the specified maximum of 3 psi This seam was tested at a pressure of 32 psi instead of the specified 18-25 psi so the percentage pressure drop was less than the normal allowable percentage The seam was also destructively tested The seam is considered to be acceptable

7224 Record Drawing

The Geomembrane Record Drawing does not show the locations of the repairs and patches as specified Since an accurate survey was not specifically required the data was not available to show on the record drawing The locations are generally noted in the Repair Log documentation The location of the large geomembrane repair required for re-working the barrier soil is shown on the construction record drawing The record documentation is considered to be adequate

9606401 36 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 44: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

723 Gas Sand Sample 127

Gas sand sample 127 had a hydraulic conductivity of 000098 cmsec which is slightly less than the 00010 cmsec specification value

The source testing program for gas sand was intended to evaluate a soil source and determine where the acceptable soil was within the source and to determine if any or all of the proposed soil source would meet specifications TRC EnvironmentaFs Technical Memo (Draft) of July 22 1997 which reviewed the soils source test data provided to EPA acknowledged that sample 127 would be unacceptable for the intended purpose and states Material from this location is marginal at best and should be avoided Project documentation shows that marginal material within the source pit was avoided Subsequent testing of the installed gas sand indicates that material conforming with specified hydraulic conductivity requirements was provided All other samples 13 of 13 tests performed on delivered in-place soil met specified requirements

724 Barrier Soil In-Place Test 533

Test 533 was a field moisturedensity test taken on the second lift of the barrier soil on September 19 1997 The test is a failed test of moisture content dry without retest and is a non-conformance The previous and following tests 532 and 534 indicate conformance of the soil being installed in a corresponding time frame This one test has been addressed as an outlier

725 Select Borrow In-Place Tests 1058 1071 1112 1115

These four tests were individual field moisture density tests taken over a period of three weeks that failed to meet the minimum requirement of 90 percent compaction and are in non-conformance with the specifications The tests respectively have compaction of 891 899 893 and 894 percent when referenced to the proctor curve 430 having a maximum dry density of 1134 pcf Where each proctor test represents 5000 cubic yards of installed material it is anticipated that within this soil volume there is natural variation of maximum dry density There were eight different proctors used for the select borrow material with a range of maximum dry densities from 986 pcf to 1180 pcf with a mean maximum dry density of 1094 pcf Using the mean maximum dry density for computing percent compaction of these four tests the tests exceed 92 compaction and are within the specifications

726 Cover Termination Station 13+50

A pre-final inspection identified that the pipe outlet from the cover termination near station 13+50 was not built in a manner that was in strict conformance with the cover termination detail required at this location The non-conformance was caused by the pipe outlet projecting through the riprap perimeter strip above the typical detailed location at the bottom edge of the riprap It should also be noted that the cover terminates into a wetland within this general area

After the inspection a corrective action was performed to lower the pipe outlet to the bottom edge of the riprap band to achieve conformance with the cover termination detail This correction at the pipe outlet also caused the pipe outlet to be slightly below the ground surface associated with the adjacent wetland Hence correction of the non-conformance had introduced a performance issue of drainage away from the

9606401 37 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 45: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

lowered pipe end To provide positive drainage a small parabolic swale was excavated from the pipe outlet to the adjacent wetland

727 Sediment Retention Basin Outlet

The sediment retention basins outlet riser pipe has four two inch diameter dewatering orifice holes near the base Item number 14 on a MEDEP inspection memo of July 17 1998 identified these uncovered holes as a non-conformance Although outlet flow performance with the use of the stone over the dewatering holes has not taken into account within the design documentation a graded crushed stone layer has been placed over the dewatering holes in response to this MEDEP finding of non-conformance

728 Slope Bench Channel Grade

During the Final Inspection of August 27 1998 Channel C was observed to have changes in grade with one location appearing flatter than other segments Subsequent survey of the channel grade located approximately a 70-foot length of channel with a 21 center line grade with steeper grades above and below this channel segment

Acceptance of the channel slope has its basis in the Design Report May 30 1997 which states the 2 is adequate for the cross slope drainage provided by the slope bench

729 Topsoil Organic Matter

Testing of topsoil organic matter content yielded results which were below the 6 specified This is a non-conformance caused by the testing procedure employed and not the material itself

Topsoil organic matter content can be measured by various laboratory methods (eg weight loss on ignition dichromate oxidation colorimetric determination and others) and the percentage of organic matter present within the soil reported by each test method will be different The project specifications did not address which test method to use for organic matter content measurement Therefore it was necessary to determine if the results of the test methodology used indicate sufficient organic matter to support vegetation

The particular laboratory used for testing organic matter performed a loss on ignition (LOI) test of only the organic material which passed through a 2 mm sieve From discussions with the testing laboratory total organic matter content without sieving of the sample would be much greater because the composts organic matter has a discernible component of particles larger than 2 mm In addition to sieving the samples to remove larger organic matter particles the LOI test result was then converted to a Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the regression equation organic matter = 104 x LOI -10

The topsoils organic matter content has been accepted based on the knowledge that the testing method removed the organic matter particles larger than 2 mm (of which there were many because of the compost material) and because conversion of the LOI result by empirical equation involved further reduction of the result by approximately 1

9606401 38 051299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Hdoc

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 46: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

8 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE

In May 1997 an Administrative Order By Consent for Removal Action (US EPA Region 1 CERCLA Docket No CERCLA-I-97-1009) the Order was signed to allow implementation of the removal action at the Saco Municipal Landfill site The Order required submittal of a Demonstration of Compliance and Removal Action Report to document that all of the performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work (excluding the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitoring) have been achieved by the implementation of the NTCRA This Completion of Removal Action Report is to fulfill the requirement

81 NTCRA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The performance standards for the NTCRA are specified in the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work The performance standards include

bull Sediment Excavation and Consolidation bull Consolidation of Solid Waste bull Landfill Cap bull Surface Waters bull Air bull Long Term Monitoring bull Post Removal Site Control bull Institutional Controls

Table 8-1 summarizes these performance standards their requirements as contained in the Removal Action Statement of Work and the actual condition that achieved these standards The documentation for achievement of these standards is contained within the descriptive text and appendices of this Completion of Removal Action Report

9606401 39Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

051299

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 47: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

P

1 v

bullraquo

laquo

Hi I bull

|

Ad

ifi

its o

f w

nativ

e s

that

the

A t

gas

vent

str

uctu

res

crus

stco

llect

ion

tren

ch a

tth

e elaquo11 lli

laquo S lraquoi shyiC 5 C o laquo 5 laquo deg HO O a o -o 5 E co

1 S 1 5 sectii 1shy41

bullg S - U

i-s^ -o uu c c E ltJ c a -71 o c i laquo c shyws

U

sect _v ^

^ ^ o

J c pound -C g^E 93 - s s

21^

H 2 2^ ~ bulllt 1 ltO S 5 S bC K S CO

2 O laquo E H c5 l 3I I

s

= o S 8 = o C S-S 2 1

1pound2 ^

S5

J= laquo shy

3 u S fo laquo S3 laquox o t- 2 bull5-^ 5 laquo ill J S f 1 i i 1 poundsect gl E t c shy

O rs 3 Jr laquosi r-

i Ji tS pound -5

o

c3 o

8 o io 8M O I v laquo

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 48: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

01 1laquo laquo 3 S b13 -c 1 1 i |||

| pound -| | g-b 1 s 1 bs i sect i pound

gpound-o

sect

1 I Sil

rifie

d th

e so

il m

ater

ial

and

inst

alla

tion

prac

tices

2 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d a

min

imum

18

inch

3

c Tgt inc

hes

of sa

nd w

as in

stal

led

abov

e th

e ge

omem

b

bull dr

aina

ge p

ipes

ins

talle

d w

ithin

the

drai

nage

U

aits

pro

vide

for

rem

oval

of w

ater

from

the

drai

na

palt

emen

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

rai

ncd

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f Wor

k iz

e po

tent

ial

leak

age

thro

ugh

the g

eom

c

pound 9 2 n obullK -5 1 1 1 sect 3s i if 11 b | bull C

2 -c oum

12

inch

es o

[ sa

nd o

r equ

ival

ent m

ail

c S ^ c bulloo o x s^ ^ o deg K t I

o S I| | o 1 1 500 c S r- p a 2 mdash ^ bullg| 2 g -B ~rt laquo n |j b1bulli E x C 5 -5 o c gt^

to u

se a

geo

synt

hetic

dra

inag

e la

yer w

i

es

seep

age

forc

es w

ithin

the

cap

syst

cr

yer

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e dr

aina

ge la

Act

ual C

ondi

g

11 if j j ll

v u -o K 5 ~deg gt -~ -0

|1 |i gif

inst

alle

d di

rect

ly u

pon

the

barr

ier

soil

laye

r to

1 CL

-sect

n th

e m

ater

ials

max

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f I

elud

e a

GC

L an

d a

1 E-

5 cm

sec

hydr

au

requ

ires

uctiv

ity r

equi

rem

ent

as n

ot r

equi

red

to a

chie

ve s

tabi

lity

hen

ce it

wa

perm

ost s

urfa

ce o

fthi

s la

yer s

hall

be b

u a

min

imum

30

inch

es o

f soi

l abo

ve th

e lo

wer

bar

ofth

e ca

p

pane

ls s

eam

ed to

geth

er to

cre

ate

a co

ntin

uous

wi

t wat

er in

filtra

tion

into

the

land

fill

mod

ate

settl

emen

t and

sub

side

nce

1 s al 11 bull ||1

ensi

ty p

olye

thyl

ene

geom

embr

ane

prod

uct

was

in s

tabi

lity

ace

geom

embr

ane

spec

ified

and

use

d to

impr

ove

ity

e ge

omem

bran

e 40

-60

mils

thic

k em

bran

e w

as sp

ecifi

ed a

nd in

stal

led

min

imum

hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity o

f 0 (

1 1 |i bull= 5^

suits

ver

ifies

this

requ

irem

ent w

as a

chie

ved

houl

d be

no

coar

ser t

han

38

inch

su

its v

erifi

es th

is re

quire

men

t was

ach

ieve

d

not i

nclu

de u

se o

fthi

s op

tion

2 3 B laquo 1o p 11

e

s d

rain

age

to p

reve

nt p

ondi

ng o

f wat

er

M M 5

ltP o yf C fc1 lllEL

rass

es a

nd le

gum

es w

as e

stab

lishe

d on

the

cap

uire

men

t was

for

a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ches

of f

ill o

n 1

inch

es o

f fill

on

the

north

ern

aspe

cts

of th

e Ia

n ith

the

12 i

nch

drai

nage

laye

r th

e m

inim

um 3

0 w

as o

btai

ned

a v

eget

ativ

e co

ver

offi

llm

ater

ial p

rovi

de fr

ost

prot

ectio

n

VI bullO

iI i Ii |l 1 | bull= 1 i 1 = laquo|u Sj rt o ~ JS 5 pound js gtbull Eamp s s 5 s 5 [S g pound lt S E S i-u 00 s (i C- t gt pound1

U

5 P |S i1

n 1bullSi c111 g gshy|-i Hm X u -

c

IS

i lt lt1 lt lt 5 pound73

o fr 15

CO 1

V ex

1U

11 a bull

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 49: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

S laquo

bullo c

o b

00 c pound C W 2 fc c laquo r^ = lt 1

pound

-Sy

Req

uire

men

t of t

he N

TC

RA

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d as

con

tain

ed in

the

Stat

emen

t of W

ork

mal

enal

in

clud

ing

at le

ast 6

inch

es o

f top

sh

all b

e pl

aced

abo

ve th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer t

o pr

ovid

e ad

equa

te w

ater

-hol

din

capa

city

to

atte

nuat

e ra

infa

ll in

filtra

tion

into

the

drai

nage

laye

r to

sus

taii

5 -gS 9t -3 bull- bull= 8 8 5 g il ~ S laquo8 c b 3 1 amp S bull pound g c g bull3 1 laquo - i

Con

stru

cted

to

mm

imi

c er

osio

n du

nng

cons

truc

tion

and

to r

educ

e er

osio

i 0 bullK 5 i 3 g st bulls - c laquo laquo o i a 8s c 1 i s sectbull C ff 73 e J -o a 8 o H I S a s amp laquo amp bull B - S O US E e s g bull8 5Jgt | s 5 -oC -3 g 0 c amppound p

1a HI Hi il ^ 11 111 J 11 ill ii D

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

ins

tall

ed i

n ce

rtai

n ar

eas

on t

he l

op a

nd p

crim

ct

VI pound laquo _ s i T3 bull2 J5 1 C | ^ s s bull8 - f

5S M _ 0 = s i S b 1 sect 81

a 25

-yea

r 2

4-ho

ur s

torm

eve

nt w

ith f

reeb

oard

and

sha

ll a

lso

be c

apab

le o

c 5 o imdash T 5 r i amp e c

the

Cle

an W

ater

Act

and

the

Mai

ne w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s an

d st

orm

wa

llic

poi

nt(s

) of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r air

shal

l be

the

pom

l(s) o

f the

max

imum

cgt

indi

vidu

al i

nclu

ding

adj

acen

t res

iden

ts o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

per

soi

The

pass

ive

gas

syst

em s

hall

not a

llow

for a

n un

acce

ptab

le ri

sk of

exp

osui

g JSj -S|gt S f -1 laquo 1 S bullr- bull1 i il I8 u_c rL 5 d 5

^isectraquo

i P-l |

1 bull5 CU 5 K bull It I

S-2111 ij II |i Sdeg i| bull1

bulls

^ - E1 2 o 1pound 5 s eg I H mdash5 m C bullsect laquo a 0 rj pound1 o f Ti - 1 sect 11 11 spound bullS pound

i Bagi 2 sect5 sectS IE c 1 mdash gt i iti

on W

hich

Ach

ieve

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

lai

iqui

rem

ent w

as fo

r a m

inim

um 1

8 in

ci

24 in

ches

of f

ill o

n th

e no

rther

n as

pec

with

the

12 in

ch d

rain

age

laye

r an

d 6shy

inch

laye

r of f

rost

prot

ectio

n w

as o

btai

PRSC

Pla

n re

quire

s m

ovin

g to

inhi

bil

icor

pora

ted r

ipra

p lin

ed s

lope

ben

ch c

h co

nseq

uent

ly li

mit

eros

ion

on v

eget

atelt

ign

incl

udes

slo

pe b

ench

dra

inag

e ch

m

ovc

surf

ace

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

p in

a e

eded

sta

ndar

d by

pro

vidi

ng s

urfa

ce i

in

veyi

ng w

ith fr

eebo

ard

the

runo

ff f

ro

satu

rate

d or

froz

en g

roun

d co

nditi

ons

nts w

ere

used

in d

evel

opin

g th

e de

sign

and

empl

oyed

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

estin

g pr

ogra

m u

sed

a po

int o

f com

plia

Test

ing

incl

uded

a s

ampl

e co

A m

inim

um o

f 18

inch

es o

f fil l

vege

tatio

n th

roug

hout

dry

per

iod

and

to p

rovi

de s

uffic

ient

thic

knes

s to

al

1 I o

long

-term

ero

sion

loss

es

Dee

p ro

oted

pla

nts

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e dr

aina

ge a

nd b

arrie

r lay

ers w

ill

id l

egum

e m

ix s

elec

ted

by d

esig

n do

al

low

ed to

gro

w o

n th

e cov

er

A fi

lter

fabr

ic m

ay h

e pl

aced

bet

wee

n th

e to

p la

yer a

nd th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

i spe

cifie

d ge

otex

tile

fabr

ic

with

sew

rm

inim

ie fi

ll m

aten

al f

rom

clo

ggin

g th

e dr

aina

ge la

yer

wo

soil

laye

rs

cap

afle

r co

nstr

ucti

on t

o no

mor

e th

an 2

ton

s pe

r ac

re p

er y

ear

land

fill

cap

In c

hann

el m

noff

away

fro

m t

he l

andf

ill

Sur

face

wat

er d

rain

age

chan

nels

wil

l be

des

igne

d to

man

age

the

rain

fall

v

hand

ling

a 1

00-y

ear

24-

hour

sto

rm e

vent

with

out

over

flow

Any

poi

nt s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

lUK

S pr

ogra

m S

ectio

n po

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

ass

ocia

ted

with

disc

harg

e re

quire

men

ts

The

docu

men

ts S

torm

wat

cr M

anag

emen

t for

Mai

ne B

est M

anag

emen

t Pi

(Nov

embe

r 19

95 M

EDEP

) an

d M

aine

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol f

or

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (

Mar

ch 1

99

1 M

EDF

P an

d CC

shal

l be

used

as

guid

ance

grad

ein

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng a

t the

fac

ility

as

ven

t whi

ch h

ad a

det

ecta

ble

leve

l of

test

ing

foun

d ex

posu

re l

evel

s w

ell b

eli

max

imum

exp

osed

indi

vidu

als

by

cont

rolli

ng a

nd tr

eatin

g la

ndfil

l gas

if

e sta

ndar

ds

nece

ssar

y

1I E8 D r5

CJ

| z u 32

I

w 11 8o tt lt

V

liIS pound1

3 S sbullbullsl n 5(5

873

D

-| _C

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 50: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

bullo

laquo -5 c c sect S E

T o c E S go o c ji-U laquo _ w- E 5 V o 1 a00 c pound C

ea i lt ts

I R 8

deg5

Is

8 I 11 raquo^ I1 bull -o

pound -laquo 5

oo c TJ gt- C ugl a s-s

1 C = C

= 1

o in ue

con

trol

syst

le

ast

10 y

e

rl $o

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 51: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

82 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal and state human health and environmental statutes and regulations used to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup scope and formulate removalremedial action alternatives and govern the implementation and operation of a selected removal or remedial action Although Congress did not in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA require EPA to meet ARARs during removal actions (Preamble to Final NCP 55 FR 8695 March 8 1990) EPAs policy as established in the National Contingency Plan has been to require that removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300415(i)) Section 30 of the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis for the Saco Municipal Landfill site identified the potential ARARs for the proposed removal action Based on this information the USEPA identified in Appendix X to the Action Memorandum the ARARs to be attained as part of this project These ARARs are presented in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 along with a synopsis of the requirement the activities to be conducted to comply with each ARAR and the activities that were conducted to ensure compliance with each ARAR

9606401 44 J1299 Saco F-CERT 02-99 Ildoc

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 52: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

00

gt- cs -a sect 3 u

mdash 0 _c s J-i

bullmdash O

J 1 1 o

O |1

^ deg 11 is II 1 sect vgt11

00 g|S li si SI ITgt S M pound C P e pound ^^ S gs sect 1 gl 2 o 5 n g sect 1 u ^ P I u | S ff bull8-5 13 o C 8 sect v 2 w

g J 6 o|1 laquo S| -

laquo f bull bull _^ o 5 u gt 0

isect g s e- 8 2 amp P ltN t5 E | S

SS - i 5 sect5 1^ - C C 13 5 o bullpound O e b ) 00 w o -2

M HO 3 11

o o v laquo g gt hsect1 Ill 1 11 I

E 2 bullS E g U o -a a ggt t

luat

c po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

C3 O -J laquo a -p 3 vshybull-lt

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

bom

e

duri

The

Res

iden

t En

gine

v

isua

lly m

onito

r du

st l

evel

s ar

ound

gts w

ere

used

to

eval

uate

pot

entia

l ris

k fr

c ta

mm

ant e

xpos

ure

and

to id

entif

y th

ose

soi

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p po

lcnt

i cm

enta

l ca

ncer risk

resu

lting

G

rc

stru

ctio

n si

te

and

impl

emen

t en

gine

eri

trol

s to

red

uce

thes

e le

vels

as

nece

ssar

y

th

o s

that

will

be

inco

rpor

ated

und

er th

e ca

p

luat

e po

tent

ial

nsks

pos

ed b

y co

ntam

inat

to

to

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

co

ncen

trat

ion

rang

es

wer

e us

ed

sc

se

ep

area

s

an

d id

entif

ying

se

ep

area

s

Act

iviti

es t

o be

Con

duct

ed t

o C

ompl

y w

ith R

equi

rem

ent

a co

ncer

n

sbull

wer

e us

ed

to

estim

ate

imen

ts

and

to

iden

tify

imcn

ts

and

to

iden

tify

jrpo

rate

d un

der

the

cap

du

st

may

be

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

11tam

man

t ex

posu

re

laquo amp h

deg e deg sect 2 G

se

o jza O M O O

e c co oyexshy 2 8 5 0 S 8 S s - E g O ti C3 0 gt gt O mdash gtbull mdash u

w 3 cj e3 P O BO g sect H -3 o S o E

pound -^ c i g s |81 1 bull 1 S- -S a g -a ex O mdash i t mdash

bull3 CJ

ea o6 gbullg-s -a a claquo c I 1 raamp o tJ V g- pound laquo 6 0

5 5e3 c5 deg oi CO C J3 tl tmdash gt

1 deg s i 0

0

bulli 2 3 |-oi l^ | 1u

O O laquo gt - u

g

bE 5 2 -2 ~lt_ 5 oc g-3 8shy5 3amp ^ mdashbull u X n

cw cL ^ ^ rtbully 2 S

t 3 g bull5 vS C c bull^0 0 fj gtbull CJ 5 P ao ^ S c 5 0 0 g u

pound ^ pound 1 15 mdash ~ j o gt CT

oo-S s Ji

oraquo

11 i s^ l3 1 mdash

wbull

-3 deg o 75 csectS | _pound oyE sect gE 40 g5 C M Ic laquo o-o - _

o c M 2 D 2 -c i Ss ^

o c bullp 0 bullpound poundV] ^ 5 rt mdashbulllaquo ii121o i~^ I

bull e B S o 2 bull= bullSzSS-3 I s obull gt 13 S c K c E s^J n o 5S E g g S o js _ y 2 J g I g s o Cf 1 u to o S 3 0 0 C r- ex laquo o x- v 0 o CH H 8 sect r^ Osect 8 II i ^ p

G

ro

Mai

ne A

mbi

ent

O bulla bullao u 0 u Ub b ubullo ^o2 2 J VI 7 V VI suc e C C

9 o p O O

5 ampjju

$ u

jz lt o o O oH r 1c cmdash

| ^ tfl 3 lt S l^g | o 113pound 1 1 M

pound g C- o glt 1 5 gt-J 5 iSc U^ ni E ew D

CO bull| ltsectlt sectKlt o ^ n c y s bull 5 C3 E

amp bullmdash gt^ o U 3 c p 2 p lt r^ xmdash

| C

i

US

E

mPr

otec

tion

Age

nc

Ris

k R

cfcr

cnc

(RfD

s)

USE

PAA

sses

smen

tC

ance

r Sl

ope

(CSF

s)

Nat

iona

l O

cc

Atm

osph

eric

Adr

Ef

fect

s R

ange

Con

cent

ratio

nsSe

dim

ents

O

ntan

o C

anad

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lC

once

ntra

tions

1 PS o

1 Stan

dard

s (M

EI

06-0

96 C

MR

l 10

5i

o

I

li

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 53: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

1 1111 sect|| bullg B - g P ^ c t bullampSSSjSS S S J laquo2 bulliii 2 - Tp bull a fc

vtii$ ill -o raquoTi f

P111 |laquoll | laquo sect llll eJ ^rt 3

11 les a J i ci 2 0 ltibull mdash 0 a a || raquo1gfi 1Si sect 1 secti|ll jc5 | 8

^2^7 S lt o -S bull3-37 gt5bullJBSg c U sectF 8 H5 H n

5 c1 1PsfrisS s^ll 8 sect1 o^|1 graquosect j| S ti deg 3 s- - S trt 4J Tl bil= is 11^ s 1 bullsect|pound gt B pound

-s II IiiiesiW s ^ 1^ 1 aiKSl

II pound e E 5 | sect 1VI

lli o laquo y c T p I^a EsectS P 3c pound s VO U mdash -s J|111 a P U g HJ gt u a 3 Tn pound ~ ~ o 3 vgt gIII oo laquo -o laquo laquoJ 0 0 gt ggt o poundpoundsect laquo ff

gt M gt X JiIlif ^ii E gt -3 5 -g ^ x a 20 U I-1 -3 M ^^

lli bull o1W

i sect bull$

M

cinn li la jiSSS tfl rt pound laquo ISTT R3 0 0 TNTT R3 t)w trade y

bullg-SfS sect5 bullg-SlS g5III 5 gtbullraquo 3 _ sect o bdquo Oill ^1^ o ^ -IYdeg

^

M u c X la M o 7 S C-laquoll bullsectbull bull3ia S l i H w

g13i S i lt ii sect s laquov deg laquo poundbull0o 8 Mi 2^ 8 J - laquo bulldeg18 bull5u Sa - y ^ c-g pound Gil 1 JJ J J laquo fgt F ^ ^ ^2 c^ ^3 bullbull 031ampj UO

^~ -

C0 gt (3 g sect y

imcn

t cxc

avat

iol

of th

is re

med

ial

f r i l l s S-8 sect|deg 2poundamp-S S v bullpound

Ji bulla_g 8-5M laquo VI Ishy7 bull c K

f^l|laquo -o c -a81- e pi S o o -5 2 HK = |lbull

bullsectltbullamp

Mllaquo-al8 S laquo 1 J8 5js bullpound P ^ Z-o S S u = pounda e ^ ^ P X i_ -0 S 5 u =3 0 C -0 lt2 -3 5 shy2 U-wg -0 pound -o gn bull- g =v eocdeg S5 e sect i S mdash =poundra bullJ 0lpound i =-gt 0 S Sibull OC 0 J -o laquoS0- l l -o^ l lbull ^ mdash ~deg c

oo S laquo a ge -JS bulln

P$$P

ampS

umm

a^

Wet

land

sFl

oa

The

Wet

land

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er r

equi

res

fede

ral

agen

cies

to

min

imiz

e th

e de

stru

ctio

n l

oss

or

degr

adat

ion

of

wet

land

s

and

pres

erve

an

d en

hanc

e na

tura

l an

d be

nefi

cial

va

lues

of

w

etla

nds

The

Fl

oodp

lain

s E

xecu

tive

Ord

er

requ

ires

fe

dera

l ag

enci

es t

o re

duce

ther

isk

of fl

ood

loss

to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

off

iood

san

d to

res

tore

an

d pr

eser

ve t

he n

atur

al a

nd b

enef

icia

l va

lues

of

flo

odpl

ains

Sect

ion

404

of t

he

Cle

an

Wat

er A

ct (

CW

A)

regu

late

s th

e di

scha

rge

of

dred

ged

or

fill

mat

eria

l in

to U

S

wat

ers

inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds

T

he p

urpo

se o

f Se

ctio

n 40

4 is

to

ensu

re t

hat

prop

osed

dis

char

ges

arc

eval

uate

d w

ith r

espe

ct

to

impa

ct

on

the

aqua

tic

ecos

yste

m

The

guid

elin

es p

rohi

bit

the

disc

harg

e of

dre

dge

or

fill

mat

eria

l if

ther

e is

a p

ract

icab

le a

ltern

ativ

ew

ith

less

im

pact

to

th

e aq

uatic

sy

stem

D

isch

arge

is

also

pr

ohib

ited

unle

ss

step

s ar

e ta

ken

to m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l ad

vers

e im

pact

s o

r if

it w

ill

caus

e or

co

ntri

bute

to

sig

nifi

cant

de

grad

atio

n of

US

wat

ers

The

se

requ

irem

ents

in

clud

e cr

iteri

a fo

r ob

tain

ing

auth

oriz

atio

n to

exc

avat

e se

dim

ents

laquo pound I w o S f c - g - S

II

11 J J1 O u

vj^r

from

wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

equ

ircn

i

-- u o _u H s

JS2 XI 2 Xi a aixiSS n a rju o y cgbullii 5 E 1 poundbullpog ex ex 1 u B

lt lt lt 5 5shyes lt

Illl a g

-bullbullbullbullbull b vs o o 2 USfe 2 lt2 Sg Pc0 S gt

o a P 0 o 5OH So lt8 2 S o w O mdash gt wgt pound laquo^lt - p ^ R ^ 2 ^ O t) Q ^^ O

Ilil cs gtbull Wililx-vXy

^H ymdash JS4gt 2 3 O oo x ^C M r^ laquo

f^je5 J3PJ3 bull= lt_ 73 ci mdashbull ^ A (Namp ^W lt

g-3 Cvaxji 803if ^ craquo -ffiilaquoraquosssE laquo|-- v-vW

| l deg -6amp^ laquo amp laquo o

t_osect 5 1J3 Bltbull 0 SbullV ugt degXr 45 deg bullshy O ^ r

H^^ M W laquo E 2^ Ex

a g g go tshy^$laquobullbullbull ff ms1sectamp

bull WH VO ^ )YT2 G o

iu o I- Ilia J s y ||bull M ^~ =r^ o -bull -^ rn O ^trade r^i Blt E O (S J ^T1 O ^q P-mdash c 8bulls ^ sect-J

1

0

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 54: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

H tf bullo c

lt sect

g a u p E s o g o laquo S laquo - c C o o o g o bdquobullgt

(

o

sect10 - c b j j c o j ^ o S^lj S sect S c3 SS_j lt ^ ^ 3 ^ yttp lt3 2 bull--) y O O gt bullsect pound E deg l 3 ^^ b c ^ o O C i

n|cr 5 S | J | |1|H 2 - 4 deg li-deg VS 2 2 g gt sectraquoo O c n ^ o K g o J 3 ^ bull^ K c Jc 18 K mdash sect -a 5-Sl |~ n i sect -2 -S pound-3 -^

r ^ ^ y C o C S CTOr - m ^ f a u c r a a i1 1 1 1lt^1 i

bull3 o _0 C rO

laquoi 3 jc 3 n 2 S

y c c 3 s elaquo

aV ex -H tbullW

T 9-amp lteS lt

trt lt^S CS 3lt s ^^deg e3 e w 2 ^ = pi v ^T

o 6 shy5 laquogt | K8 2-gj

s i ^ ^ltamp -^5 0 sectlaquo

l|

S^ c

deglaquo laquo sect

8 -i sa J sect11

_o a 2

15 0

r~ M laquo

igt xgt

s

sectpoundampd Q O gtM fy^

OH O ^^-^ shy

- laquos

I R

equire

ment

Fis

h

and

Coord

inatio

nU

SC

66

1) 4

RC

RA

Loca

ti (4

0 C

FR

264

1

3 deg c3 fa M bull 1 0 z g 35 ^1l laquoIMO

laquoll c o 0 laquoshybull laquo P -3 If

115 s i p=5 PS J

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 55: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

M sectbull fi bulllaquo in T3 C

o pound2 O

D

O J OO ^ p bull

Sla 1o

lt a o c 0 C 3

c 2 5 o bull-bull

pound -a Scj Q g

o

ci

V

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 56: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

c _ y -a -o - Is bull c c

S S

O mdash raquo

laquo 5 8 5 E araquo c - bullraquo S sect - a pound c

bullS 5 SI pound53 mdash

1^

u I ^ S Jpoundlt g mdash -a H

E -3 3laquo 00

CO u

be C

oni

Rcq

u

2 5 desg

n m

eet 63

gs bulla

si- 7S cgtt

in OO ex gt Ebullc lts

laquolaquo ^e

^deg U laquos --e g a ^^

i E 3 ampbullo lt E a J S

u-1 sect 00 U O Z - ^ a lpound o st^bullsectsect shybullsect U ~ bull = u o c a B ao J g 0^ a g c bullpound o JJ S

bullSO egt r e^ 5 pound 0j E V3 gtlt o a o ^ bull bulla e g o c C o

Q) CP- n

rr b ltS ^bullg0 sect S o i b M c S o

S-J gt_ mdash o 3S o g g oo u S^H g a bull 3 e

ltN1 laquopound = i ltN

bulla o e deg g B

II 1 |

c 0O G BshyT C o lt lt

RC

RA

Su

e D

for

Mun

icip

al S

olid

Was

te

Land

fills

(40

CFR

Par

t 25

8)

Was

te (40

649

5 c

Doc

ent

Fin

Cov

azar

dous

Wa

llsH

azan

dSu

rfce

Impo

ents

U

SE A

O

ffice

of

Solid

ndEm

erg

cy R

es

uly

Cr

rit

eria

cs o

ssTT-sect tmdash

O 03

9

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 57: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

9 CONCLUSION

91 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Woodard amp Curran provided Construction Quality Assurance services for the Landfill Closure Project at the Saco Municipal Landfill Saco Maine The project consisted of waste limit determination relocation and grading of waste construction of a composite cover system stormwater drainage sedimentation controls surface stabilization and other associated appurtenances

Documentation and inspection of geosynthetic components for the cover system were performed by JampL Engineering Inc Certification of the geosynthetic components by JampL Engineering Inc is presented in a separate document prepared by JampL Engineering Inc JampLs certification report was revised to reflect comments made by Woodard amp Curran EPA and MEDEP GeoSyntec Consultants performed an independent review of the JampL Engineering report conducted a supplemental data collection program and presented findings regarding geosynthetic installation to support project certification

Laboratory and field soils testing work was performed by SW Cole Engineering Laboratory testing of interface friction was provided by GeoTesting Express Boxborough Massachusetts and by TRI Environmental Inc Austin Texas Soil test data and interpretations were provided to Woodard amp Curran for inclusion into this report

Woodard amp Currans evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based upon observations and testing events performed as part of the Construction Qual i ty Assurance program designed specifically for th is project Materials or condit ions may change wi th t ime and location from those observed and tested by Woodard amp Curran during the performance of our services and these changes could effect the performance of the materials tested Woodard amp Curran has also relied on testing data collected by others the i r experience with the test procedures and interpreta t ions of the results If these measurements or data analysis by others are not accurate it may al ter our conclusions

92 CERTIFYING STAMP amp SIGNATURES

Based on the information examined as described above it is the opinion of Woodard amp Curran that the Landfi l l Closure Project at the Saco Munic ipa l Landf i l l Saco Maine was constructed in accordance with approved Drawings Project Specifications and CQA Plan Woodard amp Curran certifies that the NTCRA is operational and functional as designed and constructed With the exception of the Post Removal Site Control and the Long Term Monitor ing performance standards that continue into the future all other performance standards and other requirements of the Action Memorandum and Statement of Work have been achieved by the implementat ion of the NTCRA No further modifications are necessary to meet the performance standards and no unacceptable air or surface water releases from the l andf i l l cap are occurring or are expected to occur

Paul Porada PE Certifying Engineer

9606-101 51 42399 SacoF-CERT02-99doc

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263
Page 58: Completion of Removal Action Report Saco Municipa Landfill ... › work › 01 › 5263.pdf · SacoF-CERT02-99II.doc . In May 199 a7n Administrative Orde By Consenr fot r Remova l

On behalf of the City of Saco for whom I have the authority to make this certification I certify that to the best of my knowledge after appropriate inquiries of relevant persons involved in the preparation of the Report the information submitted is true accurate and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations

Coraquo -lu raquoV pound laquo VAILLAfiCOURT bull2 raquo bull

^bullbull^ VVamp3

Guy Wm Vaillancourt PE Project Coordinator

9606401 52 Saco F-CERT 02-99 doc

  1. barcode 5263
  2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 5263