SOMSOocIO 2027684
2027684
Exponent, Inc.
Expanded PipelineInvestigation Report,Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
August 1,2003
ExponentFailure Analysis Associates'*
Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report,Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
August 1,2003
Prepared for:
Mr. Alan GaddyRepublic Services of Southern Nevada770 East Sahara AvenueLas Vegas, NV 89104
Exponent320 GoddardSuite 200Irvine, CA 92618
telephone 949-341-6000facsimile 949-341-60^9www exponent com
Prepared by:
Douglas Hamilton, P.E.Senior Managing Engineer
Exponent, Inc.320 GoddardSuite 200Irvine, CA 92618
Jene E. Lyle, P.E.Senior Engineer
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
Contents
Contents i
List of Figures Hi
List of Tables iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
Summary and Conclusions 1
1.0 Project Description 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Design Constraints 6
1.2.1 Design Stormwater Event 6
1.2.2 Pipeline Description 6
1.2.3 Design Criteria 7
1.3 Scope of Report 7
2.0 Field Investigation 8
2.1 Prior Investigations by Others 8
2.2 Exponent Investigations 8
2.3 Pipe Load Test Investigation 9
3.0 Surface and Subsurface Conditions 11
3.1 Introduction 11
3.2 Geologic Unit Descriptions 11
3.3 Refuse Thickness 12
4.0 Seismic Hazards 13
4.1 Ground Shaking Hazard 13
4.1.1 Probabilistic Approach 13
4.1.2 UBC Site Factor 14
4.1.3 IBC Site Factor 14
4.2 Design Earthquake Event " 15<
OC10290 001 GOTO 0603 RDH3 -
4.3 Seismic Response of Refuse 15
4.3.1 Seismic Response 15
4.3.2 Wave Propagation Effects 16
4.3.3 Seismic Settlement Hazard 16
4.4 Seismic Rockfall Hazard 17
5.0 Other Design Considerations 18
5.1 Settlement of Refuse 18
5.2 Local Surface Drainage 20
5.3 Wind Loading 20
5.4 Temperature Fluctuations 20
5.5 Human Activity 21
6.0 Pipeline Material and Joint Alternatives 22
6.1 Pipeline Material Alternatives 22
6.1.1 High-Density Polyethylene (HOPE) 22
6.1.2 PVC Pipeline Material 24
6.1.3 Concrete 24
6.1.4 Steel 24
6.2 Selection of Pipeline Materials 25
7.0 Foundation Alternatives 26
7.1 Foundation Alternatives 26
7.1.1 Surface Installation with Soil Cover 26
7.1.2 Trench and Cover 26
7.1.3 Foundation Systems 26
7.2 Technical Comparison of Foundation Alternatives 28
8.0 References 31
Appendix A Previous Investigations along Pipeline Alignment
Appendix B Concrete Pipe Load Test Investigation
Appendix C Exponent Evaluation of Deep Pile Foundation and Grade Beam PipelineSupport Alternative
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
List of Figures
Figure 1. Controlled Flow Plan Pipeline Alignment Map
Figure 2. Controlled Flow Plan Pipeline Geology Map
Figure 3. Seismic Hazard Curve (PHGA) for the Controlled Flow Plan Pipeline
Figure 4. Uniform Hazard Spectra (5% Damping), Rock Site Condition
Figure 5. Schematic Diagram Showing Pipeline Surface Installation with Soil Cover
Figure 6. Schematic Diagram Showing Cut and Cover Method of Pipeline Installation
Figure 7. Schematic Diagram Showing Deep Foundation System for Pipeline Support
Figure 8. Schematic Diagram Showing Ballast System for Pipeline Support
Figure 9. Schematic Diagram Showing Layout and Anchoring of HOPE Solid Wall Pipeline
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 •••
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Pipeline Material Cost Estimates 25
Table 2 Summary of Pipeline Material Attributes 25
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 •
Acronyms and Abbreviations
FaAAHOPEPHGAEPARSSNRCPPGAARPUBCDBCUSGSDRIUFAWWAPVC
Failure Analysis AssociatesHigh-Density PolyethylenePeak Horizontal Ground AccelerationEnvironmental Protection AgencyRepublic Services of Southern NevadaReinforced Concrete PipePeak Ground AccelerationAnnual Return PeriodUniform Building CodeInternational Building CodeU.S. Geological SurveyDesert Research InstituteUltraviolet Solar RadiationAmerican Water Works AssociationPolyvinyl Chloride
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
Summary and Conclusions
On January 24,2003 Exponent submitted a stormwater protection study which described the
Controlled Flow Plan. On March 20,2003 the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 9 authorized Exponent to proceed with the design and plans that would
implement the Controlled Flow Plan. This Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report is prepared
and submitted to EPA as part of the implementation of the Controlled Flow Plan. The main
purpose of the Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report is for Exponent to evaluate pipeline
support techniques and material-type options, to address recent issues raised by EPA, and to
recommend the most technically feasible and cost effective option for pipeline support
techniques and pipeline material.
Pipeline Support
To fully respond to EPA's requests regarding pipeline issues, the Expanded Pipeline
Investigation Report examines the following pipeline support alternatives:
1. Burial of the pipeline in a trench on the landfill
2. Placing the pipeline on the landfill surface and burying it with a mound of soil
3. Support using a foundation system
a. Driven Pile Foundation System
b. Drilled Pier and Grade Beam System
c. Rock Ballast Support System
During a June 24, 2003 meeting in San Francisco, EPA requested that Republic Services of
Southern Nevada (RSSN) provide additional investigations on the pipeline element of the
Controlled Flow Plan based on research that EPA was then conducting. On June 27, 2003, EPA
issued a letter requesting that RSSN develop a pipeline alternative that provided support for the
pipeline in areas where it crosses buried waste materials. Attached to the June 27, 2003 letter
OC10290 001 GOTO 08C3 RDH3 i
was a "Technical Concern Memo" that mentioned three possible pipeline support methods:
burial of the pipeline in an excavated trench; covering the pipeline with soil on the landfill
surface; and supporting the pipeline on "piers." EPA's design concept of piers resting on
bedrock is termed a Driven Pile Foundation System.
This Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report, along with our January 24, 2003 Stormwater
Protection Plan report explains that one of the principles for the design of the Controlled Flow
Plan is to locate the pipeline above ground, in response to EPA's original concerns that a buried
pipeline might be more difficult to inspect for possible leaks. Therefore, the support techniques
of burying the pipeline in a trench or covering the pipeline with soil on the surface of the landfill
have both been evaluated but rejected in this investigation because the original concerns
expressed by EPA remain valid, and we did not identify any benefits that lessened or
outweighed those concerns.
During a previous meeting, which took place in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 26, 2003, EPA
discussed the possibility of installing a series of piers along the pipeline's route that would
penetrate the waste mass and rest on bedrock. At that meeting, Exponent explained that the
potential for significant landfill settlement along the selected pipeline route is minimal, and that
a Driven Pile Foundation System was not a viable design alternative for supporting the pipeline,
as it would adversely affect its long-term integrity. Additional analysis done for the Expanded
Pipeline Investigation reveals that that a Driven Pile Foundation System is not a viable design
approach for this situation because: 1) if additional settlement occurs, the piles remain at a fixed
vertical elevation ensuring that any possible settlement is expressed as differential settlement; 2)
if the waste mass experiences vertical settlement, the piers would be subject to differential
horizontal movement and could detach the piles from the pipeline; 3) this support system makes
long-term maintenance of the pipeline problematic; and 4) this system would be cost prohibitive
and difficult to construct.
Because it is our opinion that a Driven Pile Foundation System has such a high likelihood of
failure, the Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report develops and evaluates a revised alternative
called a Drilled Pier and Grade Beam System. This alternative is less likely to have long-term
structural failure because the piers are actually drilled into bedrock giving them resistance to
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 O
potential lateral loading caused by buried waste materials. However, this investigation still
rejects the Drilled Pier and Grade Beam System for other technical reasons: 1) the seismic
design of the variable pier lengths and attachment methods for this system is a major
engineering undertaking that could delay project implementation for up to one year; 2) drilling
into bedrock would introduce significant amounts of water to the waste mass during
construction; 3) the interface between the piles and the waste material would create preferential
flow paths deep into the waste mass; 4) this system could be subject to potential horizontal
displacement; 5) this system would be difficult to maintain; and 6) this system is cost
prohibitive and difficult to construct.
Although the potential for settlement along the proposed pipeline route is minimal, the
Expanded Pipeline Investigation identifies a third support alternative, a Rock Ballast Support
System, which is more flexible and responsive to possible landfill settlement than the previous
two systems. This system involves placing a rock and gravel layer upon which the pipeline
would rest. The profile of the pipeline would be surveyed annually and, if there were differential
settlement, ballast would be placed or removed to adjust the pipeline's gradient. The Rock
Ballast Support system is a straightforward, proven technology that has been used for more than
a century in the railroad industry. Railroad ballast systems are used to maintain tight tolerances
in environments with extreme temperature ranges for challenging site conditions such as active
landslide areas, where the underlying soil is much less stable than could be realized at the
Sunrise Mountain Landfill. Because a Rock Ballast Support System is straightforward to design
and construct it can be periodically adjusted, if necessary, to maintain the pipeline gradient, and
it does not compromise the landfill cover by penetrating it like pier systems do. The Expanded
Pipeline Investigation Report concludes that a Rock Ballast Support System is clearly the most
suitable pipeline support method for the pipeline to be installed as part of the Controlled Flow
Plan at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill.
Pipeline Material and Joint Technique
The Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report evaluates the following pipeline materials and joint
techniques:
OC10290.001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
1. High Density Polyethylene (HOPE)
a. Solid wall with fusion welded joints
b. Corrugated with gasketed bell and spigot joints
2. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) with gasketed bell and spigot joints
3. Reinforced Concrete with gasketed compression joints
4. Steel pipe with concrete corrosion protection lining and welded joints
The pipeline materials listed above were evaluated based on the ability of the pipeline support
system to accommodate possible differential settlement, avoiding localized stress concentrations
at the pipeline joints; and other design issues: durability, thermal expansion, ultraviolet light
(UV) protection, flexibility, and ease of maintenance. The investigation concludes that solid
wall HOPE pipe with fusion welded joints is the most suitable pipeline material for the pipeline
to be installed as part of the Controlled Flow Plan for the following reasons: its gradient can be
readily adjusted on the Rock Ballast Support System, if necessary, to respond to possible
settlement; its large wall thickness provides more UV protection and resistance to possible
gunfire than corrugated HOPE; the fusion welded joint avoids localized stress concentrations;
and this pipeline material is generally more flexible and easier to maintain than other materials.
A preliminary pipeline design is provided in this report for the recommended system. This
system includes a Rock Ballast Support System for the entire pipeline route with geogrid
reinforcement where the pipeline transitions from native soil to the landfill cover soil. The solid
wall HOPE pipeline will be laid out in a slight serpentine pattern to accommodate thermal
expansion. The pipeline will be anchored at a series of points along its route to provide stability
from seismic, wind, thermal, and hydrodynamic forces.
OC10290.001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
1.0 Project Description
1.1 Background
Pursuant to an agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 9, Republic Services of Southern Nevada (RSSN) is preparing design plans for the
construction of the Controlled Flow Plan to provide stormwater protection to the closed Sunrise
Mountain Landfill. This plan is described in Exponent's January 24, 2003 report entitled,
Stormwater Protection for the Proposed Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County, Nevada.
Additional stormwater protection measures are proposed in Exponent's June 19,2003 report
entitled, Cover Plan, Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County, Nevada.
One element of the Controlled Flow Plan is a pipeline designed to convey stormwater across the
surface of the closed landfill along its eastern margin, hi the Controlled Flow Plan, stormwater
originating from a 200-year event in the upper part of the watershed will be impounded behind
an earthfill detention dam located in the Northeast Canyon area (Figure 1). The pipeline is
designed to convey impounded water from the detention basin to a channel at the southeastern
margin of the landfill. The detention basin will be drained by the pipeline within a period of
approximately 24 hours after the 200-year design storm. Design alternatives for the stormwater
detention basin, dam, and outlet works are presented in Exponent's June 27, 2003 report
entitled, Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geologic Report, Proposed Stormwater
Detention Basin, Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County, Nevada.
During a June 24, 2003 meeting in San Francisco, EPA requested that RSSN conduct additional
investigations on the pipeline element of the Controlled Flow Plan based on research that EPA
was then itself conducting. On June 27, 2003, EPA issued a letter requesting that RSSN
develop a pipeline alternative that provided support for the pipeline in areas where it crosses
buried waste materials. Attached to the June 27, 2003 letter was a "Technical Concern Memo"
that mentioned three possible pipeline support methods: burial of the pipeline in an excavated
trench; covering the pipeline with soil on the landfill surface; and supporting the pipeline on
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 ROH3
"piers." In a June 30, 2003 letter from Don Patterson, Esq., attorney for RSSN, a request was
made for additional information about EPA's concerns. In a July 18, 2003 letter, EPA declined
to provide supporting documentation for several concerns expressed in its "Technical Concern
Memorandum." The July 18, 2003 EPA letter stated that the June 27,2003 memo was basically
self-supporting, but also cited the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M9,
Chapter 6, and conversations with unnamed individuals at several concrete pipe manufacturers
associations.
In an email dated July 18th from David Basinger of EPA Region 9 to Alan Gaddy of RSSN,
EPA acknowledged that it would accept the Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report as
compliance with the relevant parts of the Controlled Flow Plan schedule. No further information
on its pipeline research or requests for information have been received from EPA since its July
18,2003 letter and email.
1.2 Design Constraints
1.2.1 Design Stormwater Event
The pipeline for the Controlled Flow Plan will have a peak flow capacity of approximately 90
cubic feet per second. For the 200-year design storm event, the pipeline will flow for
approximately 24 hours after the design storm.
1.2.2 Pipeline Description
The proposed above-grade pipeline will have an inside diameter of approximately 34 inches and
a length of about 5,100 feet, of which 2,800 feet will cross over the Eastern Perimeter of the
landfill. The pipeline will extend an additional 400 feet under the dam embankment to the
detention basin's outlet structure. Figure 1 shows the approximate pipeline alignment.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
1.2.3 Design Criteria
The performance objectives of the pipeline system could potentially be accommodated by a
number of pipeline materials and foundation approaches. In this report, we evaluate a number
of criteria in order to identify the most suitable pipeline system for the Controlled Flow Plan.
These criteria include:
• The engineering characteristics of the refuse and geologic units along the alignment
• The seismic setting and potential seismic response of the refuse and geologic units
along the alignment
• The environmental setting of the pipeline alignment
• Efficiency of construction, inspection and maintenance of the pipeline system
• Avoiding construction activities that would compromise the waste mass
• The potential impacts of human activity
• Cost effectiveness
1.3 Scope of Report
This Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report summarizes Exponent's evaluation of design
alternatives for the pipeline portion of the Controlled Flow Plan. Our study includes:
• Summary of surface, subsurface and geologic conditions along the pipelinealignment
• Summary of seismic design considerations relevant to the pipeline
• Technical evaluation of other design considerations for the pipeline,including possible settlement, surface drainage, wind loading, effects of solarradiation, temperature fluctuations, and human activity
• Technical evaluation of pipeline material and pipe segment joiningalternatives
• Technical evaluation of foundation alternatives to provide support for thepipeline
• Evaluation of costs for different pipe materials, joint types, and pipelinesupport
• Description of recommended pipeline system
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3
2.0 Field Investigation
2.1 Prior Investigations by Others
SCS Engineers, Inc. (SCS) performed a number of field investigations at the closed Sunrise
Mountain Landfill, including the area covered by Figure 1. Among the data collected by SCS,
were a number of hollow-stem auger borings through refuse performed between January and
July, 2000 at EPA's direction. The locations of these borings are shown on Figure 1. Six of the
SCS borings (CB-7, CB-9, and CB-12 to CB-15) were performed in the Northeast Canyon area.
Logs of these borings are presented in Appendix B of our June 27, 2003 report. Logs of the
remaining four borings (CB-4, CB-6, CB-10 and CB-11) are provided in Appendix A of this
report.
Data from the SCS borings were combined with topographic survey data to derive the refuse
thickness contours that are shown on Figure 1. The refuse thickness contours reported on
Figure 1 are consistent with the data obtained from borings performed by Exponent in the area
of the dam investigation (Exponent, 2003c). Waste depths range from 5 feet to 25 feet along the
part of the pipeline alignment that crosses waste.
2.2 Exponent Investigations
Exponent has prepared three prior reports that contain information relevant to the current
investigation. Exponent (2003a) identifies the Controlled Flow Plan for stormwater protection
and contains engineering geologic observations of the slopes and drainages bounding the eastern
side of the Sunrise Mountain Landfill in the vicinity of the initially proposed pipeline alignment.
Exponent (2003b) is the Cover Plan which identifies final erosion and drainage improvements to
the landfill cover along the pipeline's proposed alignment. Exponent (2003c) reports the results
of an engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation for the proposed detention dam and
basin components of the Controlled Flow Plan. The proposed dam is located at the northern end
of the pipeline alignment. Figure 1 shows the locations of field investigations performed in the
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 o
area of the proposed dam and detention basin. The logs of the borings, cores, test pits and
trenches performed by Exponent in the area of the dam and detention basin are reported in
Exponent (2003c).
2.3 Pipe Load Test Investigation
At the February 26, 2003 meeting, EPA suggested the possibility of using reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) material rather than the originally proposed corrugated HOPE pipe in order to
provide additional durability and resistance to possible penetration by firearms. Exponent
conducted a pipe load investigation to determine whether the increased weight caused by
placing concrete pipeline material on the landfill surface would cause local consolidation and
settlement near the landfill surface. This section provides a brief summary of the load test
procedures and results. Details of the pipe load test investigation are provided in Appendix B.
Four 8-foot long, 42-inch diameter RCPs (each weighing approximately 6,880 pounds) were
individually placed along the proposed preliminary alignment of the pipeline on May 14, 2003.
A fifth pipe segment was placed in an area underlain by approximately 40 feet of refuse, which
is significantly more than the greatest thickness of refuse traversed by the preliminary pipeline
alignment, but is not directly on the alignment. The pipe test locations are shown on Figure 1.
The fifth pipe segment was filled with sacks of cement to increase its weight to approximately
9,130 Ibs to simulate a water-filled condition.
On May 15, 2003, string lines were installed at each pipe segment to allow measurement of
settlement prior to field survey control being established. On May 20, 2003, Horizon Surveys
(Horizon) set survey nails in the top of each pipe inlet and outlet, and placed four survey hubs
approximately 8 feet away from each pipe to monitor indications of ground movement. Horizon
monitored settlement of the RCPs on a weekly basis through July 3, 2003.
During the six-week survey period, minimal settlement was recorded at the pipe segments. At
locations RCP-1 and RCP-2 a maximum of 0.01 feet (0.12 inches) and 0.015 feet (0.18 inches)
were measured, respectively. The cement-weighted segment exhibited essentially no settlement.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 (\
The differential leveling surveys show that pipe segments experienced no significant localized
settlement over the monitoring period.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 ROH3 10
3.0 Surface and Subsurface Conditions
3.1 Introduction
Our geologic assessment indicates that the proposed pipeline alignment crosses Hermit
Formation bedrock, refuse, and possibly (beneath the refuse) thin intervals of alluvium or
colluvium. Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of geologic units along the pipeline
alignment. Brief descriptions of these geologic units crossed by the pipeline alignment are
provided below. Engineering geologic descriptions of other geologic units in the vicinity of the
Sunrise Mountain landfill (indicated on Figure 2) are provided in Exponent (2003a) and
Exponent (2003c).
3.2 Geologic Unit Descriptions
Hermit Formation (Ph)
Several portions of the pipeline alignment are located on surficial outcrops of the Hermit
Formation. The Hermit Formation is also interpreted to form the substrate beneath the refuse
along much of the pipeline alignment. Hermit Formation bedrock generally consists of reddish-
brown fine to medium grained sandy siltstone and silty sandstone. Locally, it contains intervals
of grayish-yellow to white cross-bedded sandstone. Beneath a slightly weathered surface, the
Hermit Formation is hard, as indicated by a resistance to drilling. Hollow-stem auger borings
performed for the dam investigation (which used an 8-inch diameter flight auger) generally
could not penetrate more than a few inches into the Hermit Formation before the auger bit was
destroyed.
Refuse (R)
This unit consists of refuse that is covered with a locally-derived cover layer. Refuse excavated
from the borings, performed for the dam investigation, consisted primarily of dry, miscellaneous
household waste. In most areas, the cover material consists of fine-grained compacted fill
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH311
material derived from local alluvium and colluvium deposits. Portions of the landfill are
mantled with limestone gravel and cobbles for erosion protection. Based on the SCS and
Exponent borings, the refuse generally lies directly atop the Hermit Formation. Locally, a thin
layer of alluvium separates the refuse from the underlying Hermit Formation.
Alluvium (Qa) and Colluvium (Qcol)
Alluvium and colluvium partially mantle the base of the Eastern Ridge along the proposed
pipeline alignment. Alluvium and colluvium encountered during the dam investigation
consisted primarily of light brown, lightly to moderately cemented, sandy gravel, with
occasional limestone cobbles and boulders. Hollow-stem auger borings performed for the dam
investigation were advanced with difficulty through the alluvium and colluvium due to the
presence of this resistant limestone material.
3.3 Refuse Thickness
Figure 1 shows refuse thickness contours along the proposed pipeline alignment, based on work
by SCS Engineers. As shown on Figure 1, the refuse fills the preexisting valley to depths of as
much as 120 feet above the original ground surface beneath the south-central portion of the
landfill. Because the pipeline alignment is located along the eastern edge of the landfill, the
refuse beneath the pipeline alignment is typically 20 feet in thickness.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 12
4.0 Seismic Hazards
4.1 Ground Shaking Hazard
The Sunrise Mountain Landfill is located in a tectonically quiet portion of the Basin and Range.
No historic earthquakes larger than magnitude 5.0 have occurred within 100 miles of the site.
The local faults, though potentially capable of generating moderate to large seismic events,
accumulate stress so slowly that return times for major earthquakes on any of them is typically
on the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years or longer. The seismic groundshaking exposure of the
pipeline and appurtenant structures has been modeled using a probabilistic approach (see
below). Details of the historic seismicity and seismic source faults in the project vicinity are
provided in Exponent (2003c).
4.1.1 Probabilistic Approach
The probabilistic ground-shaking hazard for the pipeline was evaluated using nationwide data
compiled in the "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for California, Nevada and Utah" (Frankel,
et al., 1996; Frankel, et al, 2002) for a firm rock site classification. This site classification
corresponds to the geologic conditions at the landfill, wherein the shear-wave velocity averaged
over the top 100 feet is estimated to be about 2,500 feet per second (Exponent, 2003c).
The 2002 maps provide values for peak ground acceleration (PGA), as well as for 0.2 sec and
1.0 sec spectral acceleration (assuming 5% damping) corresponding to 475-year and 2,475-year
annual return periods (ARP). The 475-year average annual return period (ARP) is consistent
with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for design of conventional structures.
The annual probability of exceeding a specific level of ground motion is shown on Figure 3.
The hazard curve shown in Figure 3 represents the contribution of several sources added to
obtain the total seismic hazard at the landfill. Based on the 2002 seismic hazard maps, the peak
horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) at the landfill is estimated to be 0.12g for a 475-year
APR, and 0.25g for a 2,475-year APR.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 ROH3 13
4.1.2 UBC Site Factor
According to Figure 16-2 of the 1997 UBC, the landfill is located in Zone 2B. Based on 1997
UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile for landfill is assumed to be type SB (rock sites), as discussed
above. The seismic source type is B (Table 16-U), based on the proximity of the Frenchman
Mountain fault to the landfill (Exponent, 2003c). Based on the soil profile and seismic source
type, we suggest the following coefficients for the pipeline:
Near-Source Factor Na
Near-Source Factor Nv
Seismic Coefficient Ca
Seismic Coefficient Cv
Not applicable toZone 2B
Not applicable toZone 2B
0.20
0.20
4.1.3 IBC Site Factor
According to Figures 1615 (1) and 1615 (2) of the IBC 2000, the Sunrise Mountain Landfill is
located in an area of Nevada in which the maximum earthquake ground motion for short period
response Ss is equal to 0.80g and for the long period response, Si is equal to 0.23 g (Exponent,
2003c). Based on the subsurface conditions at the landfill (see above), and Table 1615.1.1 of
the 2000 IBC, the Site Class Type is expected to be "B". Based on the soil profile and site
location we suggest the following coefficients for the pipeline:
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 14
Maximum Considered Short-Period Spectral Response Ss
Maximum Considered Long-Period Spectral Response Si
Site Coefficient Fa
Site Coefficient Fv
Design Short-Period Spectral Response SDS
Design Long-Period Spectral Response SM
0.80
0.23
1.00
1.00
0.53
0.15
4.2 Design Earthquake Event
A design seismic response spectrum is necessary to evaluate the seismic stability of the pipeline.
Using the probabilistic approach, we recommend adopting a design acceleration spectrum
corresponding to a 2,475-year earthquake event (the same as for the dam). We have evaluated
the analysis and results by the USGS for this hazard level in their 1996 and 2002 studies. As
shown on Figure 4, we have compared those results with the IBC 2000 spectra for the site. Our
recommended seismic design spectrum completely envelops the 2002 USGS and IBC 2000
spectra. As shown on Figure 4, the recommended design spectra has a PHGA of 0.30g, a peak
spectral acceleration of 0.6g between periods of 0.08 and 0.32 sec, and a spectral acceleration of
0.09g at 2 seconds.
4.3 Seismic Response of Refuse
4.3.1 Seismic Response
In order to evaluate the pier alternative suggested by EPA, the lateral loads that could be caused
by buried waste shifting and pushing against the piers, needs to be addressed. The seismic
response of a buried waste mass is a function of several variables, including: dynamic refuse
properties, fill heights, site conditions, and earthquake motions (Bray, et al., 1998). Historically,
landfill covers have not been significantly damaged in earthquakes (USEPA, 1995). Two
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 15
earthquakes in particular, the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (M = 7.1) that occurred
in the San Francisco area, and the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake (M = 6.7) that
occurred just north of Los Angeles, have provided much useful information on the seismic
performance of landfills.
Orr, et al. (1990) surveyed 10 landfills in areas impacted by the Loma Prieta earthquake. The
estimated PHGA at these sites ranged from 0.1 to 0.45 g (the PHGA for Sunrise Mountain
Landfill is 0.3g). Based on the results of their survey, Orr, et al. (1990) concluded that the
landfills were not significantly damaged in the earthquake. They found the most common type
of damage to be surficial cracking in the landfill side slopes. From their review of landfill gas
extraction systems, Orr, et al. (1990) concluded that flexible pipeline designs accommodate
seismic events better than other approaches.
Matasovic, et al. (1995) collected and analyzed information for twenty-two landfills within the
area impacted from the Northridge Earthquake. These landfills had estimated PHGA's ranging
from 0.07 to 0.51 g. Based on their work, Matasovic, et al. (1995) concluded that the landfills
performed well; the most common damage reported was cracking of cover soils at transitions
between refuse fills and natural ground. None of the studies reviewed analyzed potential loading
that could be caused by shifting materials within the waste column.
4.3.2 Wave Propagation Effects
Seismic waves traveling across the site during a potential earthquake event would transmit
energy to the pipeline. The final design of the pipeline support system will address possible
wave propagation effects.
4.3.3 Seismic Settlement Hazard
Seismic-induced settlement is a phenomenon that can affect certain natural soils such as loose
sand. However, seismic-induced vertical settlement has not been an issue at other landfills .
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 16
The Mission Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County was equipped with instrumentation to
measure vertical and horizontal movements of refuse (Coduto, 1990). These instruments were
in place when the Whittier Earthquake shook the site on October 1,1987. The earthquake had a
magnitude of 5.9 and occurred approximately 14 miles from the site. No significant vertical
movements were recorded during this event.
4.4 Seismic Rockfall Hazard
Rockfall is considered an unlikely seismic hazard to the pipeline because its alignment is
outside the reach of detached, rolling boulders originating on the Eastern Ridge.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH317
5.0 Other Design Considerations
5.1 Settlement of Refuse
There are three generally recognized mechanisms for consolidation of buried waste in landfills
that could result in vertical settlement of the landfill cover. These mechanisms are:
1) compression of waste due to loads applied by construction equipment and by the weight of
additional waste placed above it; 2) secondary compression or creep caused by the long-term
effects of gravity; and 3) biological decomposition of buried waste materials (Marques et al.,
2003). The Sunrise Mountain Landfill has been closed since 1993, so it is likely that
consolidation due to compression effects has already taken place. Secondary compression is
negligible in magnitude compared to the other components (Park, et al., 2002). Consolidation of
waste materials due to biological decay can result in actual landfill settlement only if biological
decay is an active process within the waste mass. Both EPA's June 27, 2003 "Technical
Concern Memo" and Exponent's exploratory borings done in April and May 2003 confirm that
biodegradable buried waste material has not undergone significant decay at the Sunrise
Mountain Landfill. As discussed in the Exponent Cover Plan Report (Exponent, 2003b), the
main reason for the absence of significant biological decay is that an inconsequential amount of
water flux is occurring through the existing cover into the waste mass. This is due to the low
rainfall and high evaporation rates that are characteristic of the Las Vegas, Nevada area
(Exponent, 2003b).
Our review indicates that the rate of biological decomposition of landfill refuse generally
decreases over time and that the total amount of consolidation of the waste mass due to
biological decomposition can range from 18% to 24% for landfills where biodegradation is an
active process (Coduto et al. 1990). Biological decomposition at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill
is occurring at a very slow rate. Little biodegradation was observed in the refuse encountered in
Exponent's borings in the Northeast Canyon area, which contains some of the oldest refuse at
the site (some of it potentially having been in place for over 50 years, SCS, 2001). After the
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 18
implementation of the proposed Cover Plan, the potential for water flux into the landfill would
be reduced thus slowing down biodegradation rates even further.
The actual rate of vertical landfill settlement can be estimated using available on-site settlement
monitoring data. The existing gabion structure, which was built in 1994, is located on
approximately 60 feet of refuse. A survey performed by SCS Engineers in 1999 indicates this
structure experienced settlement of between 0.1 and 0.3 feet compared to as-built survey data. A
net settlement of 0.3 feet between 1994 and 1999 over 60 feet of refuse translates to an annual
vertical strain of about 0.1 percent and a settlement rate of less than % inch per year.
There are 5 settlement monuments on-site that were surveyed in July 2002 and July 2003.
Monument SM3 recorded the greatest amount of settlement between the survey dates, totaling
0.45 ft. SM3 has approximately 100 feet of refuse beneath it, thus the observed settlement
represents an annual vertical strain of about 0.45 percent. Assuming this maximum strain is
applicable to areas along the pipeline route which are situated on approximately 20 feet of
refuse, this translates to a maximum vertical settlement of approximately 0.09 feet, or slightly
more than 1 inch on an annual basis. Because this maximum rate of observed settlement can be
expected to decrease exponentially over time, it could take a decade or two in order for
biodegradation of the waste mass to achieve onlyl foot of vertical settlement along the pipeline
alignment. Even if 1 foot of settlement occurred non-uniformly, it would be straightforward to
maintain a uniform pipeline alignment under these conditions.
The slow rate of overall biologic decomposition at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill is an indicator
of negligible water flux into the waste mass. Any decrease in the amount of moisture entering
the landfill would further decrease the settlement rate. Annual maintenance measures that
would ordinarily be performed for the landfill's surface would satisfactorily achieve positive
drainage for the final cover and would also aid in maintaining a positive flow line gradient for
the pipeline, assuming that it rests on the surface of the landfill.
OC102&0 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 19
5.2 Local Surface Drainage
The proposed pipeline alignment encounters minor sheetflow surface drainage conditions along
its length. Immediately downstream of the detention basin embankment, the proposed pipeline
alignment is located on a graded bench adjacent to the existing Northeast Canyon Channel
(see Figure 1). Instead of terminating the pipeline at the entrance to the existing channel
(Channel No. 1), the alignment then bends to the east across the landfill and extends to the south
along the base of the Eastern Ridge. Carrying the pipeline across the eastern perimeter of the
landfill accommodates EPA's concern that no additional water flow through the existing
channel.
Final design details for the surface drainage along the pipeline alignment will depend on the
implementation of the Cover Plan. Exponent will supplement this report as necessary based on
EPA's comments and eventual actions related to implementation of the Cover Plan.
5.3 Wind Loading
Final design of the adopted pipeline system will include measures to resist potential movement
of the pipeline by wind.
5.4 Temperature Fluctuations
The Desert Research Institute operates a series of weather stations throughout the western
United States. Historical temperature data was reviewed from the weather station at the Las
Vegas McCarran Airport. The period of coverage was February 1, 1937 to December 31, 2002.
For the period of record, the daily maximum temperature was 117 degrees Fahrenheit and the
daily minimum temperature was 8 degrees Fahrenheit (DRI, 2003). The adopted pipeline
system will be designed to accommodate these temperature fluctuations.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 ROH3 20
5.5 Human Activity
Currently, there are several miles of exposed pipelines on grade at the Sunrise Mountain
Landfill. These pipelines are used for gas extraction. The main entrance to the Sunrise Mountain
Landfill is gated and there are trenches hindering vehicle access around the main gate. There is a
full-time attendant present at the landfill office during daytime hours and security patrols who
monitor conditions at night. To date there have been no recorded incidents of vandals shooting
weapons at the existing above ground pipelines. If major vandalism did occur at the site, it is
likely that such an event would be identified and the damage repaired quickly in the normal
course of operation because there is and will be a full-time presence at the site. Additionally, the
relative rarity of extreme storm events in this area makes it highly unlikely that such damage
would not be identified and repaired before the occurrence of such a storm event.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 21
6.0 Pipeline Material and Joint Alternatives
6.1 Pipeline Material Alternatives
Several potential pipeline materials and their respective joint alternatives are evaluated in this
report. Key criteria include: durability, thermal expansion, UV resistance, pipeline support
system, and the ability to provide maintenance that would accommodate the possibility of some
landfill settlement.
EPA's reference to AWWA Manual M9, Chapter 6 in its July 18, 2003 letter has been addressed
in our discussion of reinforced concrete pipes below in Section 6.1.3. However, this citation
applies to continuously pressurized water delivery pipe networks that are used for domestic
water delivery systems. The AWWA Manual referenced by EPA is not applicable to the
proposed stormwater pipeline at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill because it is a gravity flow,
stormwater discharge pipeline, rather than a pressurized domestic water pipeline. The AWWA
Manual M9 recommendations cited by EPA are also not applicable to the flexible pipeline
systems which are addressed here.
6.1.1 High-Density Polyethylene (HOPE)
6.1.1.1 Solid Wall Pipe
Solid wall HOPE pipes can be used above and below ground. For this specific application a
carbon black HDPE pipe with an outside diameter of 36 inches and a wall thickness of 1.1
inches is considered. Each pipe segment would be joined via a butt fusion weld that provides a
continuous leak-proof connection between adjacent pipe segments. The pipe weighs
approximately 50 pounds per linear foot and costs approximately $88 per linear foot for the
material and installation.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 22
Black carbon HDPE has excellent UV resistance and is recommended and warrantied for above-
ground use by the manufacturer. The material's flexibility allows the pipe to accommodate
horizontal and vertical movement as well as allowing regular maintenance adjustments in
gradient adjustment over time.
The potential linear thermal expansion of HDPE can be accommodated in the design of the
pipeline system. HDPE material has a low elastic modulus such that, under equivalent
conditions, the thermal stresses in HDPE pipe are significantly smaller than in steel or concrete
pipe. Hence, solid wall HDPE pipelines are typically installed in situations where flexibility is
important. The pipeline is laid out in a serpentine manner, such that the thermal elongation
between each anchor point is mitigated by the lateral deflection of the pipeline. This method of
installation requires concrete cradle attachment points to stabilize and constrain the pipeline
from wind and hydrodynamic loads. Expected wind loads, thermal expansion and topographic
features determine the spacing of the attachment points. Our preliminary design concludes that
the attachment points for this system would have to be spaced approximately every 350 feet. A
HDPE pipeline would be attached to the concrete attachment points using stainless steel clamps.
6.1.1.2 Corrugated HDPE with Smooth Interior
An alternative lightweight HDPE option is corrugated pipe with a smooth interior wall. A 36-
inch inside diameter pipe would weigh approximately 20 Ibs per linear foot. The material and
installation cost is approximately $61 per linear foot.
The thinner wall of the corrugated pipe results in the development of lower thermal forces than
the solid wall HDPE pipe. As a result, this pipe design could be laid out straight and would not
need concrete attachment points or thrust blocks for restraint against thermal expansion. Each
pipe is joined via a reduced spigot and bell design and sealed with a gasket.
The pipe's resistance to UV is provided by the addition of more than 2% carbon black.
Although this additive provides excellent UV protection, the thinner walls of the thin corrugated
pipe may not provide the same life expectancy against UV radiation as the thicker solid wall
HDPE pipe described previously.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 23
6.1.2 PVC Pipeline Material
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes are commonly used in below-ground and above-ground
applications for municipal water distribution services and for irrigation. PVC pipes are typically
joined via a bell and spigot joint sealed with a gasket. However, PVC pipes are susceptible to
UV radiation and are thus not suited for long-term above ground installation. A pipeline using
PVC material will not be further evaluated in this investigation.
6.1.3 Concrete
The reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) would have an inner diameter of 36 inches, a wall thickness
of 4 inches and would weigh approximately 600 Ibs per linear foot. Each pipe segment would
be approximately 8 feet long and joined with a compression rubber gasket. The RCP pipeline
will cost approximately $79 per linear foot.
6.1.4 Steel
Steel pipes are commonly used for pressurized systems but could be adapted for gravity
stormwater drainage. This type of pipeline material has an internal layer of cement to protect the
steel from corrosion. For gravity flows, internal pressures are negligible, such that the wall
thickness is determined by the spacing of the pipe's support points. Assuming a 50 foot
spacing, a 36 inch inner diameter steel pipe could be made of 10-gage steel (wall thickness of
approximately 0.1435 inches) and have a cement lining with a wall thickness of 0.375 inch.
This would result in an approximate weight of 100 Ibs per linear foot.
For external corrosion protection, the exterior of the pipe would have to be sandblasted, then
painted with a primer and a UV-tolerant topcoat. Each pipe segment would be welded on the
job site and the cement liner gap at the weld would be mortared over. A steel pipeline would
cost approximately $203 per linear foot for material and construction.
OC10290 00: GOTO 0803 RDH3 24
6.2 Selection of Pipeline Materials
Several potential pipeline materials and their respective joint alternatives are evaluated in this
Expanded Pipeline Investigation Report. The selected pipeline material should be the one that
best meets the major concerns and design criteria important to the successful function of the
proposed pipeline. Table 1 shows a summary of the cost estimates for each of the pipeline
materials. Table 2 shows a relative comparison of the attributes of each of the pipeline materials.
Table 1 Summary of Pipeline Material Cost Estimates
Category
Pipe Material and JoiningPipe AnchorsGravel Foundation & PipeHandling
Total CostToal Unit Cost
UnitIfea
If
It
Solid HDPE36" OD
Qty
5100
22
5100
UnitCost$55
$5,000
$11
Total$280,500$110,000
$56,100
$446,600$88
Corrugated HDPE36" ID
Qty
51001275
5100
UnitCost
$40$50
$8
Total$204 000$63750
$40,800
$308,550$61
Reinforced Concrete36" ID
Qty5100
1275
5100
UnitCost$46$80
$13
Total
$234,600$102,000
$66,300
$402,900$79
Lined Steel Pipe37.875" OD
Qty
5100255
5100
UnitCost$90
$2,000
$13
Total$459,000$510,000
$66 300
$1,035,300$203
Table 2 Summary of Pipeline Material Attributes /
Pipe materialHDPE (solid wall)HDPE (Corrugated)PVCReinforced ConcreteSteel (CML&C)
Joint TypeButt- fused weldedGasketed bell & spigotGasketed bell & spigotGasketed bell & spigotWelded
ss>fRulfn}High
Moderate"" Lo$?
Cow
UVResistanceHigh CModerateLowHigh CHigh
Joint GasketLife
55^ CLowLowGooo^> x~m t-
Resistarice toFirearms
Hig2££> fLowLowffigrb (ffign
Construction^Difficulty
Moderatg3cLowLow"ModeraT&N /raoDsrate-'
Thermal.Ejpansierf
HighModeratetSv^J C"Cow
\Maintenance/(Adjustment
DifficultyLow) CTowModerateHigrp <[Moderate
StressIntensityat Joints
No7KT>LowKjfv^rale^
Moderate^None
The pipeline material that best meets the selection criteria is a solid wall HDPE pipeline. This
material has high flexibility; high UV resistance; high resistance to firearms; it is
straightforward to construct a pipeline with adequate thermal expansion accommodation; it is
easy to maintain; and has no stress intensity problems at the pipeline joints. One of the major
benefits of solid wall HDPE material is that, because the pipe joints are fusion welded, the
possibility of pipeline leakage is virtually eliminated.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 25
7.0 Foundation Alternatives
7.1 Foundation Alternatives
7.1.1 Surface Installation with Soil Cover
A potential alternative for providing pipeline support is to place it on a suitable bedding material
layer directly on the ground surface, anchored with soil fill spaced along the alignment for
lateral support. Additional fill would be placed in areas of potential increases in stress (i.e., pipe
bends and changes in elevation). This is a common method for supporting HDPE pipelines for
landfill gas control across the surface of landfills. A schematic diagram of this alternative is
provided in Figure 5.
7.1.2 Trench and Cover
The trench and cover method is a second possible method for supporting the pipeline. In this
option, a trench would be excavated within the refuse that would extend to the underlying
bedrock. Soil would be placed in the excavation to bring it to pipeline grade. The pipe would
be placed in the trench and the trench backfilled with additional soil to the ground surface. A
schematic cross-section of this alternative is shown in Figure 6.
7.1.3 Foundation Systems
Foundation systems fall into two general categories: pier support and shallow support. A
complete evaluation and description of pier support options for support of the pipeline is
presented in Appendix C. A general description of pipeline foundation systems is presented
here.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 26
7.1.3.1 Driven Pile Foundation System
This foundation system is the one originally suggested by EPA at the February 26, 2003
meeting. Piles are long, slender structural members that are prefabricated and driven into the
ground to dense soil or bedrock. Different pile materials are available (steel, timber and
concrete) for use in different settings. For the Sunrise Mountain Landfill, piles would be driven
through the refuse and come to rest on the underlying bedrock. The driven piles would be
subject to movement by lateral loads from potential shifting of buried waste. Therefore this
alternative is very likely to result in a structural failure, hi time, potential lateral loads caused by
waste consolidation could cause the pipeline to detach from the top of the piles.
Because we believe that a Driven Pile Foundation System has such a high likelihood of failure,
we have developed and evaluated a revised alternative called a Drilled Pier and Grade Beam
foundation. This alternative is less likely to experience long-term structural failure than the
Driven Pile Foundation System. Nevertheless, we have rejected the Drilled Pier and Grade
Beam foundation alternative for other reasons as discussed below.
7.1.3.2 Drilled Pier and Grade Beam System
Drilled piers are foundations that are constructed of concrete and reinforcing steel that is cast-in-
place in a shaft excavated with a drill rig. Within the limitation of common drilling equipment,
drilled pier shafts typically have diameters up to 72 inches and lengths up to 80 feet. Individual
foundation points can be supported by individual drilled piers, or by multiple piers connected
using a pier cap. A concrete grade beam or other supporting structure would be required to
continuously support the pipeline between foundation points. A schematic of this option is
presented in Figure 7. Appendix C provides a detailed discussion of this alternative. Based on
our preliminary analysis, the cost of the Drilled Pier and Grade Beam foundation is
approximately $4,972,000 not including the pipeline material.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH327
7.1.3.3 Rock Ballast Support System
Another option under consideration is to construct the pipeline upon a foundation of rock and
gravel ballast material. Since the middle of the 19th Century, railroad lines have been supported
on foundations of adjustable ballast. These rail systems span thousands of miles in extreme
temperatures and have to remain within tight tolerances to keep a locomotive from derailing.
The proposed ballast layer beneath the pipeline would be a minimum of 6 inches thick, hi the
event that settlement of the landfill surface does occur, this system would allow the pipeline
grade to be adjusted as required by raising the pipeline with a forklift or jacking system and
adjusting the amount of ballast beneath the pipeline. The ballast would also permit surface
drainage to pass through it without significant flow resistance. A schematic drawing of this
option is presented in Figure 8.
To provide additional protection against differential settlement, the basic ballast configuration
shown in Figure 8 would be augmented using geo-grid reinforcement at key transitions between
natural soil and the soil cover over buried waste material. Geo-grid adds tensile and shear
strength to the soil substrate and will act to reduce possible surface manifestations of differential
settlement in treated areas. The geo-grid would be placed within a layer of engineered fill
beneath the ballast layer.
7.2 Technical Comparison of Foundation Alternatives
EPA has recently indicated that RSSN should include an alternative that accommodates the
potential for differential settlement, and allow the pipeline to be easily inspected for leaks.
Because of this latter concern, burying the pipeline will not be further considered as a viable
option.
There are fatal technical flaws associated with the implementation of a Driven Pile Foundation
System. These arises primarily because the piles would rest on the underlying bedrock and
would not be able to resist lateral loads. A Driven Pile Foundation System is not a feasible
option at the Sunrise Mountain landfill for the following reasons: 1) if settlement occurs, the
piles remain at a fixed vertical elevation ensuring that any possible settlement is expressed as
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 28
differential settlement; 2) if the waste mass experiences vertical settlement, the piers would be
subject to differential horizontal movement and could detach the piles from the pipeline; 3) this
support system makes long-term maintenance of the pipeline problematic; and 4) this system is
cost prohibitive and difficult to construct.
Also, piles cannot be driven into the Hermit Formation substrate due to its high material
strength. Although the design issues are formidable, and perhaps insurmountable, piers can be
installed into the bedrock by drilling into the rock. In response to EPA suggested foundation,
Exponent has developed the Drilled Pier and Grade Beam alternative. This alternative is less
likely to have long-term structural failure because the piers are actually drilled into bedrock
giving them resistance to potential lateral loading caused by buried waste materials. However,
this investigation still rejects the Drilled Pier and Grade Beam System for other technical
reasons: 1) the seismic design of the variable pier lengths and attachment methods for this
system is a major engineering undertaking that could delay project implementation for up to one
year; 2) drilling into bedrock would introduce significant amounts of water to the waste mass
during construction; 3) the interface between the piles and the waste material would create
preferential flow paths deep into the waste mass; 4) this system could be subject to potential
horizontal displacement; 5) this system would be difficult to maintain; and 6) this system is cost
prohibitive and difficult to construct.
In contrast, the Rock Ballast Support System, illustrated in Figure 8, addresses all of the
relevant design considerations for the pipeline system. The ballast provides a buffer against
differential settlement loads being applied directly to the pipeline (as would be the case in laying
the pipe directly on the surface of the landfill). The ballast system also allows the effects of
differential settlement to be rapidly and easily accommodated by adding or removing ballast
from the affected area. The ballast system permits ready inspection of the pipeline. The ballast
can also be shaped to cradle the pipe for lateral support and still accommodate movements due
to thermal expansion. The ballast system also readily accommodates surface drainage.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 29
Exponent's proposal for providing additional pipeline support is to place the pipeline on a layer
of rock and gravel ballast that can be adjusted to accommodate for possible long-term settlement
of the landfill surface (Figure 9). Surface water off the eastern slope would be allowed to sheet
flow to the pipeline and then pass through drainage culverts and/or filter through the rock
bedding to continue its westerly movement to the top deck channel (Channel No.l). There are
four locations along the eastern perimeter where the flow from the eastern slope is sufficiently
concentrated as to require a defined crossing location (swale). At these four locations, drainage
crossing points will be designed into the Rock Ballast Support System.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 30
8.0 References
Bray, J.D. and Rathje, E.J., 1998. Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Solid-Waste Landfills:
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, p. 242-253.
Coduto, D.P. and Huitric, R., 1990. Monitoring Landfill Movements Using Precise Instruments:
Geotechnics of Waste Fills - Theory and Practice, ASTM STP 1070, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, p. 358-370.
Desert Research Institute (DRI), 2003. Western Regional Climate Center,
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/.
Dunn, J., 1995. Design and Construction of Foundations Compatible with Solid Wastes:
Proceedings of the 1995 Conference of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE,
Special Publication No. 53, p. 139-159.
Exponent, Inc., 2003a. Stormwater Protection for the Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County,
Nevada: unpublished consultant's report, 27 p. (January 24).
Exponent, Inc., 2003b. Cover Plan for the Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County, Nevada:
unpublished consultant's report, 27 p. (June 19).
Exponent, Inc., 2003c. Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geologic Report, Proposed
Stormwater Detention Basin, Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County, Nevada: unpublished
consultant's report, 59 p. (June 27).
Frankel, A.D., Mueller, C.S., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D.M., Leyendecker, E.V., Dickman, N.,
Hanson, S., and Hopper, M., 1996. National Seismic Hazard Maps, June 1996, Documentation:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-532 ,100 p.
Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V.,
Wesson, R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S., 2002.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH331
Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: United States
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 02-420.
Marques, A.C.M., Filz, G.M., and Vilar, O.M., 2003. Composite Compressibility Model for
Municipal Solid Waste, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 129,
no. 4, p. 372-378.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Augello, A.J., Bray, J.D., and Seed, R.B., 1995. Solid
Waste Landfill Damage Caused by 17 January 1994 Northridge Earthquake: in: Woods, Mary
C., and Seiple, Ray W., Eds., The Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994,
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication No.
116, Sacramento, California, pp. 43-51.
Orr, W.R., and Finch, M.O., 1990. Solid Waste Landfill Performance During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake: Geotechnics of Waste Fills - Theory and Practice, ASTM STP 1070, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Park, H.I. and Lee, S.R., 2002. Long-Term Settlement Behavior of MSW Landfills with
Various Fill Ages. Waste Management & Research, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 259, June.
Pierce, J., 2001. Commercial Development of Closed Landfills: Case Studies and
Technical/Regulatory Issues: Solid Waste Association of North America Sixth Annual Landfill
Symposium, San Diego, California, June 18, p. 227.
Pischer, D. and Parisi, F., 2002. Home Depot Builds Atop and Old Oregon Landfill, Long-term
Benefits Outweigh Challenges of Building on a Brownfield: Environmental Outlook, July 25,
http://vvww.dic.com/news/en/] 1135649.html.
SCS Engineers (SCS), 2001. February 2001 Draft, Final Historic Assessment Report, Sunrise
Mountain Landfill - Las Vegas, Nevada. February 13.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 32
Taylor, A., 1998. Award Winning Foundation Built Over Landfill: Lowney Associates,
http://www.lowney.com/press 'news.shtml.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1995. RCRA Subtitle D (258)
Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, April.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 33
OVERSIZE ITEM(S)
Due to the size of this item, it has been scanned separately.
See Document #______________ for scanned image(s).2019147
0.1
8C
*0)§ 0.01
H*.o
o-s> 0.001
CC
0.0001(
Expected response atfirm rock sites
•— — —
—
—
•= == , -v— —
—\
^
—
— — — —
— ~T~ —— — —
1~l
— —— It —
x _|_
>>-L ^>-*•
- =F -
Ir
— —— — — —— —
— —
— —— —
— —
—
— —
— —
•s* — —
K0)IftCM
C)
^^
—
0>
en
c>
I
Tot£
- — — ———
il Seismic Hazard*•|a USGS 1996
[] USGS 2002
1
= ± =— It —
11
1
— —
a
— —
i m^
— —
— —
• — —
— —
—
—
2475
3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration, PGHA (g)
Exponent
—
—
—
—
.
—
yrs-
0 01 -
-
-*
£o
o
o
oo
oo
^^
o
o
M0
^
An
nu
al R
etur
n P
erio
d, A
RP
(yea
rs)
Total Seismic Shaking Hazard CurvePHGA Figure
Sunrise Mountain Landfill Date: 06'02/03
wc"
I
\ -t +- H-l l-2475yr USGS 2002
2475yr USGS 1996IBC2000 Site Class BRecommended (or Design
-I f- 1-L J J_ J_
0.010.01 0.1 1
Period of Motion, T (sec)10
Exponent Uniform Hazard Spectra (5°o Damping)Rock Site Condition
Sunrise Mountain Landfill Date: 06/02/03
Figure4
Figure 5: Schematic Diagram Showing Pipeline SurfaceInstallation with periodic anchoring Soil Cover
Figure 6: Schematic Diagram Showing Cut and CoverMethod of Pipeline Installation
?|M^tsjf?"i'«s '^^-•'ii'uari'nv >v;-' "•!',' \.-< < f : -, ( t < 1 _ ,, ,
Figure 7: Schematic Diagram Showing Deep Foundation
System for Pipeline Support
giW-^sw* *F*r«.^^i.Sx * . %v.s ^v.\$* '< A > % . ^
.Refuse-
Figure 8: Schematic Diagram Showing Ballast Systemfor Pipeline Support
PLAN
A'-.
TYPICAL SPACING
200 TO 400 FEET
GROUND SURFACE
36 inch HDPE (Solid Wall)
ANCHOR STRAP
BALLAST
CONCRETE ANCHOR
SECTION
SECTION A-A1
Exponent/• allure A <, w><- intc
Schematic Diagram Showing Layout andAnchoring for HDPE Solid Wall Pipeline
Sunrise Mountain Landfill Date: 08/01/03
Figure9
Appendix A
Previous Investigations
Appendix A: Previous Investigations
SCS Engineers, Inc. (SCS) performed several field investigations at the Sunrise Mountain
Landfill, including the area covered by Figure A of the main text. This Appendix contains the
logs of SCS borings CB-4, CB-6, CB-10 and CB-11, which were provided to Exponent by
Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Inc. The SCS borings reported herein were performed
between January and July, 2000.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0703 RDH1 A-l
It
1 SCS E N G I N E E R S ^ •gSnTgigim flgisltJslHlrllaUB2702 North 44th Street, Suite 105B nr»oiMr- MI IMCCD. OD A o -, < ^Phoemx, Arizona 85008 BORING NUMBER: CB-4 Page 1 of 2
Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
Depth
w5 ^"5 "5E 5
O n
2-
-1
4-
-
; 6-
-2
1 8-
r3 10-
: 12-
-4
: 14-
- 16--5-
- 18-
.
-6- 20-
-
22-
-7
• 24-
Sample Informatio
11Pi
<h-z.
oCOCO inO VICO JSID O
GM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
rao— ioQ.
5(3
$
1! i iS J- ^J" J~ J~
j~ -r -rJ- J~ J~
^ $J- J* J~
j- j- S*
J- J~ J-•r J'
j- ~r j~
~r .r
j~ -r
• j- ./"
j~ .r
SSSS
S1
SSSS
S1
•j- -r
J~ J"J- J-J~ J-J- J--T *SJ- _/•J- _r
j~ -r
^ $s J-^ _fj- -r
j- s
$$j- ss sJ- J-J~ J*J- -/"J- J-J- J-J- J~j- s
j- s
JOB NUMBER: 109900701
REMARKS Borehole was logged from auger cuttings Location N 18206E 15057
Description
(0 - 3 5 ft } Light brown, Silty medium to fine SAND and GRAVEL,dry
(3 5 - 33 ft ) Waste, paper, light brown, dty
(5 ft ) Dark brown/Hack
(7 ft ) Very black gravel
(1 0 - 1 5 ft ) Black, paper, metal, wood, "fluff", slight odor, dry
(15 - 20 ft } Black, paper, metal, wood, "fluff", cloth, slight odor, dry
(20 - 25 ft ) Black, well decomposed debns and waste, majority ewood and paper, slight odor, slightly moist
Comment
Cover 3 5 ft thick
Air Monitoring at 5 ftCH4 LEL = 0%CH4 ppm = 0CH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 00
CO ppm = not recorded
(15 ft ) No change in air monitonngreadings
Air Monitoring at 18ftCH4ppm = 120(18 ft ) No change in other air monitonngreadings
Moderate to strong odor 20 to 30 ft
Drillmg Company GES
Drilling Method HSA
Logged By J. Watkins_>
Date Started 1/17/00 Time Started 10:15 pm 1
Date Ended 1/17/00 Time Ended 11:10 pm
Boring Depth 38 ft
I
*ii
SCS ENGINEERS
^en ,4zonhaSSaSU'le1°5B BORING NUMBER: CB-4 Page 2 of 2
Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
JOB NUMBER- 1099007.01
Depth
05
5 ,-"S "5£ .2
28H
h930H
32H
34H
1-11 36^
H2
13
40-
42-
44-
14 46-
-15
is
<riIol"I
-16
48-
50-
52-
54-
Sample Informatio
I
O o
If<o coz
COCO MO wCO JS
N/A
Bedrock
Description
(30 - 35 ft ) Black, wood and paper debns, moderate odor, slightlymoist
(33 ft) Some gravel coming up(33 - 38 ft) Red Sandstone BEDROCK
(33 - 34 ft) Light brown to reddish SAND
End bormg at 38 ft
Comment
(30 ft ) No change m air monitonngreadings
Air Monitoring at 33 ftCH4 ppm = 40No change in other air monitoringreadings (33 ft)
t1
IIII»IIII !
•II!&
VI
1 S C S ENGINEERS ^ •gJTgidk rii MJIslthtiittihfaB2702 North 44th street. Su.te lose BORING NUMBER: CB-6 Page 1 of 2Phoenix, Arizona 85008 °
Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
Depth
CO
<D
"S "SC- G)
-o o—
_
2--
-14-
~
-
; 6-o
-_ 8-
r3 10-*_
: 12-
-4
: 14--
16--5
- 18-
„
20-
-
22-
-7
;24-
Sample Information
ffi O
||
owtn
W JS
GM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ao
ojiaeg5
i-1**<i(-f • • *1H
J* -T S*
J~ -T S
S J~ J~
-T S*J" S
S S SJ* J-5
•r.sj-
j*j-
j-j-j*j-j-
j* j-
j- J-
j- j-
S ~J- ^
j* J~ J~j- .r .rS J~ -T
J" J~ -fJ~ J~ -T
. ;
J- -T SS -T J-
S S SJ~ S J-
S -T S
S -T S
s j- j-S S S
: £ ;~s ~J- ~s
'• $ j- J~ s
S J~ J-s s -rs s s
s -r s
j- J- J-f s j-
S J~ S
r j* "
S J" S
• j- s
J- sJ- J-
JOB NUMBER: 1099007.01
REMARKS Borehole was logged from auger cuttings Location N18971E16086
Description
(0 - 3 ft ) Light brown, Sandy SILT, dry
(3 - 30 ft ) Waste, dark gray, rags, plastic, wire, paper, etc , moist
(10 ft ) Waste, metal, rags, plastic, paper, medical waste, dark gray,most, strong odor
(14 ft ) Stiff, wood, medical waste, paper, plastic, dary gray, moist,strong odor
(24 - 25 ft ) Soft, moist (it appears like a layer of cover soil)
Comment
Air monitoring readings taken by time asopposed to depth for this confirmationboringAir Monitoring at 10 00 A MCH4 LEL = not recordedCH4 ppm = 0CH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 0CO ppm = not recorded
Air Monitoring at 10 15 A MCH4 LEL = not recordedCH4 ppm = 60CH4 VOL = not recorded02 VOL = 20 8%H2S ppm = 0CO ppm = not recorded
Air Monitoring at 10 30 A MCH4 LEL = not recordedCH4 ppm = 0CH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20.8%H2S ppm = 0CO ppm = not recorded
Drilling Company GES
iDrilling Method HSA
Logged By A. Ramos
Date Started 1/28/00 Time Started 10:00 am
Date Ended 1/28/00 Time Ended 11:00 am
Boring Depth 30 ft.
III1
I
BEfjj ijEFclifiiUrni CONFIRMATION BORING LOG
o
ft1_bOCO_l<a'oV)
tLdOOE
1osia:
11T-
1C
C
g
0
%Z%3£LS£S£M 1°5B BORING NUMBER: CB'6 P^ 2 o. 2Sunrise Mountain Landfill JOB NUMBER: 1099007.01Clark County, NevadaDepth
wCD
'CD IDE .2
L8 26-
-
,
7 28-
-9onou —
-
32-
-10
: 34-
-11 36-
38-
-12
- 40-
42-
-13
44-
-
-14 46-
48-
-
-15
50-.-
52--16
54-
Sample Information
<D oD.J3p p
llwz
6wro wO wW J5DO
N/A
Bedrock
D)o
_Jo
JCD_(TJ
5j" j-
-^ -r-r a
^
t
Description
(26 ft ) Waste, paper wood, plastic, dark gray cuttings, strong odor
(30 0 ft ) Drill bit has red dirt, also the hammer has red dirt, appearsto be red BEDROCK
End bormg at 30 ft
-
Comment
Air Monitoring at 10 45 A MCH4 LEL = not recordedCH4 ppm = 0CH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 0CO ppm = not recorded
—
II1I
II
III
II
II
ISCS ENGINEERS M CONFIRMATION BORING LOG
fhlTA^Sf"''6 "** BORING NUMBER: CB-1 0 Page 1 of 1
Sunrise Mountain LandfillClark County, Nevada
Depth
inS ___CD CDe 3
O f\0
2-
-1
4-
6-
-2
-
1 8-
r3 10-
; 12-
-4
: 14-
16--5.
18—
.
-620-
; 22-
-7
O/l24—
Sample Information
tlEECO 3OTZ
OCO
w %(J coW JSDO
GM
N/A
N/A
SMG
N/A
N/A
SM
oo
— 1o
£tti(3
1-f-~J ^-S J~ J-s~ sJ- J-s j-S J~
s s
S J~S J- SJ~ ~J- J-S J~ J~„/*_/• J-
J- J-
J~ -T -T
~s ^
^ ^"f -
~S ~J~
5 ^
^" J*
S ~r_/" ~fS ~fJ~ ~fJ" -fJ~ -fS -fS ~rS J~J~ -/•S -f~J~ -fJ~ -fJ~ -f
J* -T J-J- J- J-J" -f -/•s ~rs -s-J~ -TS -rj~ ~rJ~ -rJ~ J"
'- '4e.*>
"i"\'• ' •/~ -r j-r s j-
-T J-J~ j's- j-S J~
s- ss- J-~r _/•~r j-s j-•f~ J~•f J"s* s^ ss- ss- _rj- j-j^ j~~r ss- j--r s--r j-
a r.
JOB NUMBER: 1099007.01REMARKS Location N19270. E16052
Description
(0 1 5 ft ) GRAVEL with Silty SAND, red, native to area placed ascover matenal, dry, no odor al 8 in
(1 5 - 16 ft ) Waste, dry, consisting of paper, wood, and plastic
Light odor
(10 ft ) Waste, dry, wood, plastic, and glass
(1 6 - 1 8 ft ) Red, Silty SAND with Gravel, loosely compacted, somewaste mixed in, couldVe been interim cover, light odor
(18 - 24 ft ) Dry municipal waste, plastic, wood, and glass
(20 ft ) Municipal waste, dry, wood, paper, plastic, metal, and glass
(24 - 24 5 ft ) Contact with Silty SAND, consolidated (BEDROCK')bndboringat245ti
Comment
Air Moratonng at 8 mCH4 La = 0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL =20 9%H2S ppm = 00CO ppm = 00
Air Morotortng at 5 ftCH4La = 0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL =20 9%H2S ppm =00CO ppm = 00
Air Monitoring at 16-17 ftCH4La=0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO9 VOI — Of\ Q°/\J£. VvJL — tU a /o
H2S ppm = 00CO ppm = 00
_
Drilling Company West Haz-Mat
Drilling Method Geoprobe
Logged By D. ReeveV- j
Date Started 7/7/00 Time Started 8:00 am
Date Ended 7/7/00 Time Ended 8:35 am
Boring Depth 24.5 ft
IIIIIIIItI1I1I1
I
• scs ENGINEERS •••sninE&EHsIEai
\r
i\
3£om
»'oM-3Q.aaocczDwoO_JClig§
IsIcciTio
_ _ , _ _____ —2702 North 44th Street, Suite 105B D/~\DIM/~ MI IR/IDCD ^>D i -i n -, ^ ^Phoenix, Arizona 85008 BORING NUMBER: CB-1 1 Page 1 of 2
Sunrise Mountain Landfill JOB NUMBER: 1099007.01Clark County, Nevada REMARKS Location Naoiss, eieoss
Depth
£5 H-'S 'SE ®
2-
-1
4-
-
6-
-2
1 8-
-3 10_1 U
: 12-
-4
: 14-~
16--5
-
18-
-620-
-
~
22-
-7
24-
Sample Information
V. 0nfa 3WZ.
"oCOCO oiO <oCO J5DO
SMG
N/A
N/A
N/A
o>o_lo.cQ.
2(3
:<>•* jJ "•
V J
V j-J~ -TJ" J"./• J"S J* JJ~ J-J- J-j- -rJ~ -T Jj- j- jj" s j
s J- JF-/" J~ -jf-T J" -i-J~ -T J-J- J- J--T S -fJ~ J~ J~J~ J- J-J~ J~ J-_r _r j-
j~ j" j-j- .r v-./• _r _rj~ j~ j-s s j-J- -T J-
-/• -r ./-V j" -rJ~ S- Sj- s -rj~ J~ j--f J~ -TJ- J- J-S* -T J-J~ J" J-S J" J-J- J- J-J- J" _TS S SS J~ J-J- J- -rJ- J- S
S J- ,/•j~ S ~rJ~ J~ JT~/~ -/" -/•J~ J" J-
J~ J-J" -rj- _r^- ^>_r j-j~ -^J~ V
j" ^"j- ^*j- j"j- ./--r -r^" _/•^~ -rj~ ^./• ^"^- ^~
^- -x-j~ j-V -rJ" JT-f J-J* -rS -rs sJ- -/-j- -r
j-j-ss-j-
^~
j-
j-j-
s-j-j-j*j-j-j-_rj-J~
Description
(0 1 n ) Dry, red, Silty SAND with Gravel and some Cobbles, covermaterial, no odor at 7 in
(1 - 28 5 ft) Waste
(2 ft ) Municipal waste with paper, wood, and glass
(10 ft } Dry, municipal waste consisting of wood, paper, plastic,some metal and glass
(15 n } No odor
(20 ft ) Dry. municipal waste consisting of paper, wood, glass, andplastic
(24 and 25 5 n ) No odor
Comment
Air Monitoring at 7 inCH4 LEL = 0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 00CO ppm = 00
Air Monitoring at 15ft-CH4 LEL = 0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 00CO ppm = 00
Air Monitoring at 24-25 5 ftCH4 LEL = 0%CH4 ppm = not recordedCH4 VOL = not recordedO2 VOL = 20 9%H2S ppm = 00CO ppm = 00
Dnlling Company WestHaz-Mat Date Started 7/6/00 Time Started 1:15 pm
Drilling Method Geoprobe * Date Ended 7/6/00 Time Ended 2:1 Opm
Logged By D. Reeve Boring Depth. 29 ft
III
1III
I1
I1
1 S C S E N G I N E E R S ^ •gagldkimjgtlgl-MgJIMcllSTgai
PhS:x°tizonaSS8SUile "** BORING NUMBER: CB-1 1 Page 2 o. 2
Sunrise Mountain Landfill JOB NUMBER: 1099007.01Clark County, NevadaDepth
w
"5 "5£ 3
-8 26
- 28
-9; so-
; 32-
-10
: 34-
-11 36-
' 38-
-12
- 40-
42-
-13
44-
714 46-
48-
-15
: 52--16
1 54-
Sample Informatio
11
"oCO
O raCO J5
SM
O)o
o
Q.(0
5
ss-J*J*
J-J-
'$&.
Description
(28.5 - 29 ft.) Silty SAND (red), consolidated, free of municipalwaste, bedrockEnd of boring at 29 ft.
**
Comment
--
r
Appendix B
Concrete Pipe Load TestInvestigation
www.C-LineProducts.comStyle #70568 1-888-860-9120
UNSCANNABLE MEDIA
To use the unscannable media document(s),contact the Superfund Records Center.
Unscannable media - parent
Appendix C
Exponent's Evaluation ofDrilled Pier with Grade BeamSupport System for thePipeline
Appendix C: Exponent's Evaluation of Drilled Pier withGrade Beam Support System for the Pipeline
Introduction
In a letter and a "Technical Concern Memorandum" dated June 27, 2003, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 raised concerns regarding the proposed
pipeline of the Controlled Flow Plan which would protect the Sunrise Mountain Landfill from
stormwater. This Appendix evaluates the use of drilled pier foundations for support of the
pipeline over the landfill. The following sections describe types of foundation systems, deep
foundation types and uses; a deep foundation system to support the pipeline, and difficulties
associated with the use of a deep foundation system.
Foundation Systems
Foundation systems can be divided into two general categories - shallow foundations and deep
foundations. Shallow foundations have been used successfully to support facilities at landfills
elsewhere. Shallow foundations include ballast systems, conventional spread footings,
reinforced concrete mats, and column footings tied together with a system of grade beams.
Shallow foundations are typically used to support infrequently loaded structures (i.e., wood
framed construction, rail systems, etc.) that are resistant to differential settlements. Deep
foundations are typically used to support structures that are continuously or more heavily loaded
(i.e., commercial buildings, factories, etc.) and are less resistant to differential settlements.
However, Dunn (1995) indicates that many structures can be constructed on shallow
foundations if there is the abiliu to adjust the foundation levelness.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 p i
Description of Deep Foundation Systems
Deep foundations transmit surface loads to dense soil or bedrock at depths significantly below
the ground surface. Deep foundations are typically used instead of shallow footings in a variety
of circumstances. These include conditions where surficial soils are too weak to support a
shallow foundation, instances where a shallow foundation would be subject to scour, situations
where a foundation must pass through water, in cases when large uplift and/or large lateral
capacity is required, or when future excavation is planned adjacent to the foundation that could
undermine its structural integrity, hi the current application, EPA's suggested intent is to
support the pipeline on a deep foundation system extending to bedrock beneath the landfill to
mitigate the alleged effects of possible refuse settlement under the pipeline alignment.
Deep foundation systems fall into two general categories, driven piles and drilled piers. Piles
are long, slender structural members that are prefabricated and driven into the ground to dense
soil or bedrock. Piles can be constructed of steel, timber, or concrete and typically range in
diameter from 6 to 36 inches. Pile lengths range from approximately 20 feet to over 150 feet.
The type of pile used in a particular application is typically selected on the basis of applied
loads, required diameter, required length, local availability of materials, chemical compatibility,
and anticipated driving conditions (some piles cannot tolerate hard driving). Piles can be driven
alone or in groups connected through the use of a concrete pile cap or grade beam.
Steel piles are typically used in situations where a large capacity pile is required, hard driving
conditions are expected, the subsurface is non-corrosive, and large tensile forces (i.e., uplift) are
anticipated. Timber piles are typically used to support low to medium loads because they
cannot sustain high driving stresses. Precast concrete piles are typically used in situations where
load transfer occurs through skin friction (rather than through end bearing capacity) because it is
difficult to adjust their length by splicing or cutting. Hence, they have much greater utility in
conditions where a uniform pile length is desirable (such as a deep, uniform supporting
stratum).
Drilled piers or cast-in-place piles are similar to piles, but instead of being driven into the
ground, they are njade of concrete that is cast in a shaft excavated with a drill rig. Typical
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 p ~
drilling rigs are capable of drilling shafts up to 72 inches diameter and 80 feet deep. Typical
drilling bits include:
• Flight augers (typically used in most soils and soft rock)
• Bucket augers (useful in loose sands)
• Core barrels (cuts a circular slot creating a removable cylindrical core, useful
in hard rock, but requires the use of water or drilling fluid to remove cuttings)
• Multiroller bits (used in hard rock, but requires the use of water or drilling
fluid to advance the auger)
hi addition to providing vertical support, deep foundation systems that are anchored sufficiently
into a sound support stratum also provide resistance to lateral loads resulting from earthquakes,
wind loads, hydro-dynamic forces, or lateral soil movement from differential settlement.
Drilled Pier and Grade Beam Foundation Alternative
A drilled pier and grade beam foundation system for the pipeline would lead to the
accommodation of the lateral loads (i.e., seismic, wind, and lateral movement of the landfill)
and downdrag loads resulting from settlement of refuse. Firm Hermit Formation bedrock
underlies the refuse at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill. Based on the strength properties of the
Hermit Formation obtained during the dam investigation, any attempt to drive a steel, timber, or
concrete pile into this material would likely result in severe damage to the pile tip or buckling of
the pile. The method to construct a functional deep foundation system in this setting is to use a
system of drilled piers that penetrates the Hermit Formation bedrock.
A drilled pier system could support the pipe loads individually or through a group connected by
a pier cap or grade beam. Pier diameters could range from approximately 36 inches to 48
inches, depending on the possible lateral load requirements. At a minimum, the drilled piers
would penetrate at least 10 feet into solid, unweathered bedrock. A bucket auger or flight auger
would be requiredtto drill through the refuse material and a multiroller bit or core barrel would
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 ROH3 C-3
be required to drill into bedrock. The shaft would need to be cased through the refuse to prevent
the sidewalls from caving, and water or drilling fluid would be required to advance the auger
when drilling into bedrock. For end-bearing shafts, it is common practice to inspect the bottom
of the excavation to verify that the concrete-bedrock contact is sufficiently free of loose material
to transmit the expected loads to bedrock.
Difficulties Associated with a Drilled Pier Supported Pipeline
There are several difficult design issues associated with the use of a pipeline supported with
drilled shafts that support the exploration of other foundation options. These issues include:
• Resistance of loads
• Downdrag loads
• Constructability
• Corrosion
• Environmental protection
• Surface drainage considerations
• Inappropriate use of drilled piers in landfills
These issues are discussed in the following sections.
Resistance of Loads
From the perspective of load resistance, the use of a drilled pier foundation to support the
pipeline at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill presents two major difficulties, resistance to lateral
movement of the landfill and resistance to seismic forces. Lateral movement occurs because the
waste is located in a valley with inclined sidewalls and varying refuse thickness. The amount of
settlement is greatest in the center of the valley, where the refuse thickness is largest, and least
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 C-4
near the valley sidewalls where the refuse is at its thinnest. Because the amount of refuse
settlement is proportional to the thickness and the refuse composition is not homogeneous, an
uneven settlement profile results. This uneven settlement profile causes lateral stresses to
develop between the center and edges of the valley. This is represented schematically in Figure
C-l. When sufficient settlement has occurred, these lateral stresses overcome the resisting
forces of the refuse and the refuse and movement occurs.
Evidence for ongoing lateral movement of the landfill is provided by the presence of tension
cracks at the bedrock-waste interface along the Eastern Perimeter, where the waste is "pulling"
away from the canyon wall. The amount of lateral movement that occurs depends upon the total
amount of settlement, the inclination of the landfill-rock contact, and the shear strength of the
refuse. The amount of lateral movement and the resulting lateral loads are difficult to quantify
because of the uncertainty in the controlling parameters. However, the amount of lateral
movement could range from a few inches to a few feet. A large structural section would likely
be required to resist these forces, the magnitudes of which are difficult to quantify.
The second difficulty with supporting lateral loads is seismic design as represented
schematically in Figure C-2. Due to the various depths to bedrock along the pipeline alignment,
shaft lengths ranging from 10 to 25 feet would be necessary. These different shaft lengths have
different natural periods, so in a seismic event they would behave quite differently, causing
large loads to be introduced into the pipeline due to the differential shaking. In order to
complete the design of a foundation system that would elevate the pipeline an average of 5 feet
above the landfill cover, it would result in a delay of up to one year in the completion of the
stormwater protection plan for the landfill.
Downdrag Loads
Downdrag loads are imposed on the deep foundation system when refuse settlement exceeds the
downward movement of the foundation, as is expected to be the case for this project. These
downdrag loads are very difficult to assess without expensive large-scale pull out tests, and their
estimation is complicated by the prolonged time frame over which refuse settlement occurs at
OC10290.001 GOTO 0803 R0H3 p <-
landfills. Dunn (1995) indicates that in certain instances downdrag loads can be sufficiently
large that the entire capacity of the foundation may be required to resist them. These downdrag
loads are also referred to as negative skin friction and impose uplift forces on the foundation and
tensile stresses within the pier, which require more rebar (and therefore additional cost) to resist.
To resist these uplift forces, the foundation has to be designed with sufficient uplift capacity,
which occurs from the dead weight of the foundation and the friction between the side of the
foundation and supporting material (bedrock).
Constructability
The construction of drilled pier foundations that penetrate the landfill is a complex and difficult
construction problem. If the waste material collapses as the piers are drilled, then steel casing
would have to be inserted in order to prevent this.
Another issue is that the use of a drilling fluid would be necessary, and even in a cased hole,
would introduce significant amounts of water into the landfill. The introduction of this much
water into the waste mass could speed biodegradation and thus promote biodegradation and
possible settlement, and potentially could set the stage for a leachate release to groundwater.
Lastly, the base of the drilled pier must be inspected prior to pouring concrete to assure that the
drilled pier rests on competent material. Sending a person down the hole, even while cased,
increases the risk of exposure to landfill gas, leachate, and poses a confined space risk.
Corrosion
The decay of refuse typically results in an environment that is corrosive to concrete. Landfill
environments are typically high in acids and sulfates, which corrode concrete. Special
mitigation methods are required to protect concrete from corrosion in a subsurface landfill
environment.
Potential mitigation methods for concrete include:
OC1C290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 p r
• Use of Type II or V cement
• Increase concrete cover over steel reinforcement
• Increase the strength of the mix
• Design mix with low water permeability and high density
• Epoxy coat steel reinforcement
While several mitigation methods are provided, a special concrete mix would be required to
construct a foundation system that would survive the specialized conditions of a landfill.
Similar concerns exist for driven steel piles, for which cathodic protection or encasement would
be required, again significantly increasing construction costs.
Environmental Protection
The use of a drilled pier through a landfill compromises the integrity of the final cover. Drilling
into the bedrock provides additional avenues for landfill gas and leachate to migrate into the
vadose zone. Further, the waste-pier interface provides an avenue for the escape of landfill gas
and infiltration of surface water. Large voids would develop adjacent to the pier that would be
created from slow lateral movement (creep) of the refuse as described above, as well as in
response to seismically-induced vibration of the piers.
Surface Drainage Considerations
The construction of a deep foundation system consisting of drilled piers linked together with a
concrete grade beam could adversely affect surface drainage. A schematic diagram of the
Drilled Pier and Grade Beam support system is shown in Figure 7 of the main report. The
interface between the buried waste materials and the pier would create a preferential flow path
for surface water drainage to penetrate deep into the waste mass.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 p -,
Drilled Piers are not Used in Landfills
The technical literature was searched for case histories involving the use of deep foundations in
landfills to determine if drilled piers are commonly used to support structures over a landfill.
Exponent could not identify any situation where a deep pier foundation was used to support a
stormwater drainage pipeline that crossed a landfill. Our research did find, however that two
Home Depot stores were constructed over landfills using driven pile foundations. These efforts
were part of Brownfield Development Projects (Pischer et al, 2002 and Taylor, 1998). One
Home Depot was supported by steel H-piles driven through approximately 135 feet of refuse, to
penetrate approximately 10 feet into the underlying sand deposits. Taylor (1998) indicates that
they chose a pile foundation so refuse would not have to be hauled off and the amount of
methane gas released would be minimized. The second Home Depot store was supported by
closed end steel pipe piles driven through approximately 30 to 40 feet of refuse (Pischer et al.,
2002). Both of these cases involve the installation of driven piles through waste into sand and
are therefore not comparable to the Sunrise Mountain Landfill condition where the waste is
underlain by bedrock.
Pierce (2001) summarizes the development of several closed landfills. Three of the landfills
were developed into commercial buildings that were supported on steel or concrete piles. The
other five developments that Pierce (2001) describes were supported on shallow foundations,
but none were supported on drilled piers. Dunn (1995) indicates that driven piles are nearly
always used in landfills to support larger structures. The reasons he provides are:
• Refuse is prone to caving and casing must be used during drilling (which
increases construction costs)
• Large volumes of refuse are generated during drilling (which must be
disposed of)
• Refuse that comes out of old landfills may contain high concentrations of
toxic substances
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 ,-, o\-,-O
• Excavated refuse may present a health and safety concern to construction
personnel
Excavated refuse may present an odor nuisance
An estimate of probable cost for the Drilled Pier and Grade Beam support system is
attached to this appendix.
References
Dunn, J., 1995. Design and Construction of Foundations Compatible with Solid Wastes:
Proceedings of the 1995 Conference of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE,
Special Publication No. 53, p. 139-159.
Pierce, J., 2001. Commercial Development of Closed Landfills: Case Studies and
Technical/Regulatory Issues: Solid Waste Association of North America Sixth Annual Landfill
Symposium, San Diego, California, June 18, p. 227.
Pischer, D. and Parisi, F., 2002. Home Depot Builds Atop an Old Oregon Landfill, Long-term
Benefits Outweigh Challenges of Building on a Brownfield: Environmental Outlook, July 25,
http://www.dic.com/ncws/cn/l 1135649.html.
Taylor, A., 1998. Award Winning Foundation Built Over Landfill: Lowney Associates,
http: //www.lou ncy.com/prcss/ncws.shtml.
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 C-9
Ground Surface after Settlement
Original Ground Surface
refuse settlement
Figure C-l: Lateral Movement of Waste Fills
Pipeline will experience complexcompression, tension, and shear forcesin response to out-of-phase movement
of adjacent piers
Short pier resonates withshort period in response toground motions
Bedrock
Long pierresonates with longperiod in responseto ground motions
Figure C-2: Seismic Excitation of Deep Foundation System
Exponent Inc 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618
Sunrise Mountain LandfillEstimate of Probable Construction Costs for the Drilled Pier & Grade Beam Support System
ItemNo. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
12345
Pier DrillingReinforced Concrete pile capReinforced Concrete PierGrade BeamWaste removal from drilled holeSubtotalEngineering/ ContingenciesTotal Probable Construction Cost
130130
1,3504,500
900
25%-t-/-
eaeacycycy
$15,60000$550 00$40000$300 00
$1750
$2,028,000 00$71,50000
$540,000 00$1,350,00000
$15,75000$4,005,250 00
$966.700 00$4,971,950.00
Unit costs shown are an opinion of probable cost Actual costs may vary due to local availability of material,actual quantities rather than estimated quantities of material required, time of year of construction,and other variables beyond our control
Waste removal costs assume no hazardous material handling is required
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3 C-12
T ilOri PTlt PrOJ6C* NameL^^f-^f ICC
Failure Analysis Associates* Author -J, £- , £-V <-^~
Project Number
Date ~Jlt-'^P3 Page / of JL
-J&7~ ('*-{
TV P.
QMS 10 _ c Exponent 2003
OC10290 001 GOTO 0803 RDH3C-13