phase i remedial investigation report modern landfill … · 2020-03-12 · phase i remedial...

PHASE IREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

MODERN LANDFILLYORK, PENNSYLVANIA

APRIL 23, 1990

VOLUME III

AR302569

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11.1 PURPOSE ..................... 1-21.2 SITE BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.1 .Description .of Modern Landfill . ..... 1-31.2.2 Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-61.2.3 Previous Site Investigations ....... 1-81.2.4 Previous Remedial Activities ....... 1-121.2.5 Permits and Consent orders ........ 1-20

1..3 STATEMENT OF EXISTING CONCERNS ......... 1-221.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT ............... 1-251.5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 6

2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ................. 2-12.1 SITE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12.2 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE ............. 2-52.3 NATURAL RESOURCES ................ 2-6

2.3.1 Minerals ................. 2-62.3.2 Wetlands Studies . ............ 2-62.3.3. Groundwater Usage ............ 2-72.3.4 Surface Water Usage ........... 2-10

2.4 CLIMATOLOGY ................... 2-102.5 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY ............. 2-112.6 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.6.1 Physiographic Province . . . . . . . . . . 2-122.6.2 Regional Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . 2-122.6.3 Regional Structures . . . -. ....... 2-142.6.4 Regional Structural History ....... 2-14

2.7 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY STUDIES .......... 2-152.7.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-162.7.2 Regional Hydrogeology .......... 2-16

2.8 REFERENCES ................... 2-17

3.0 STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION ............... 3-13.1 DATA NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.1 Disposal History and SourceCharacterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.1.2 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33.1.3 Hydrogeology ................ 3-53.1.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination .... 3-63.1.5 Effectiveness of the Existing Groundwater

Extraction System ............ 3-73.1.6 Risk Assessment ............. 3-9

3.2 SCOPE OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION ......... 3-93.2.1 Geologic Investigation .......... 3-103.2.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation ....... 3-11

Modern Phase I RIRevision 012/22/89

AR3Q257Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.2.3 Sediment Investigation . . . . . . . . . . 3-163.2.4 Surface Water Investigation ....... 3-163.2.5 Air Investigation . . . ......... 3-173.2.6 Assessment of Groundwater Extraction

System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

4.0 RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ........ 4-14.1 DATA CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.1 Data Reduction .............. 4-14.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Assessment ............... 4-24.2 DISPOSAL HISTORY ................ 4-34,3 GEOLOGY ..................... 4-8

4.3.1 Surface Investigation .......... 4-84.3.2 Subsurface Investigation ......... 4-204.3.3 Site Structural Features ......... 4-244.3.4 Interpretation of Geology ........ 4-30

4.4 HYDROGEOLOGY .................. 4-414.4.1 Compilation of Hydraulic Conductivity

Data ................... 4-424.4.2 Variation of Hydraulic Conductivity . . . 4-424.4.3 Groundwater Potentiometric Pressures . . . 4-544.4.4 Groundwater Gradients .......... 4-564.4.5 Groundwater Velocities .......... 4-594.4.6 Groundwater Flow Direction and Travel

Times ................... 4-6.04.5 SEDIMENTS .................... 4-614.6 SURFACE WATER INVESTIGATION . . ... . . . . . , 4-624.7 AIR INVESTIGATION ................ 4-634.8 REFERENCES ................... 4-64

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM . . 5-15.1 WEATHER INFORMATION ............... 5-15.2 LANDFILL CAPPING PROGRAM ............ 5-25.3 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION RATES ........... 5-35.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ............... 5-4

5.4.1 Groundwater Inorganic Constituents .... 5-65.4.2 Groundwater Organic Constituents ..... 5-165.4.3 Trends in the Water Quality Data ..... 5-62

5.5 SURFACE WATER .................. 5-695.5.1 Surface Water Levels/Flows ........ 5-695.5.2 Surface Water Quality Organic Compounds . 5-705.5.3 Surface Water Quality - Inorganic

Analytes ................. 5-735.6 REFERENCES ................... 5-74

Modern Phase I RIRevision 012/22/89flR30257!

Ill


6.0 RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16.2 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL

CONCERN ..."..; ~. . . . ......... 6-66.2.1 Groundwater . . .". . . . . . . . . . . 6-156.2.2 Sediment ; . . . . . . . . . ....... 6-326.2.3 Surface Water . ............ 6-406.2.4 Summary of Chemicals of Potential

Concern ................ 6-446.3 TOXICITY CHARACTERIZATION ........... 6-48

6.3.1 Health Effect Classification andCriteria Development ............. 6-486.3.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate

Requirements (ARARs) .......... 6-526.3.3 Numerical Values of ARARs and Toxicity

Criteria . . . . . ."". . . . ...... 6-576.3.4 Toxicity Summaries ........... 6-61

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT ....... 6-656.4.1 Fate of Chemicals of Concern in Soil

and Groundwater ............ 6-696.4.2 Fate of Chemicals of Concern in Surface

Water and Sediment ........... 6-736.4.3 Fate of Chemicals in Air . ....... 6-78

6.5 EVALUATION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .... 6-806.5.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways . . 6-806.5.2 Human Risk Characterization ...... 6-102

6.6 EVALUATION OF THE NO FURTHER ACTIONALTERNATIVE .:. . . . . . . ......... 6-1436.6.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways . . 6-1436.6.2 Human Risk Characterization ...... 6-153

6.7 UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT ....... 6-1666.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 6-174

6.8.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern ..... 6-1746.8.2 Comparison to ARARs and Other Guidance . 6-1756.8.3 Risk Characterization ......... 6-176

6.9 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1897.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ACTIONS . . .. 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION .................. 7-17.2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ........ 7-27.3 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE REMEDIAL

ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-67.4 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE

REQUIREMENTS .................. 7-77.4.1 Chemical-Specific Arars . ........ 7-87.4.2 Location-Specific ARARs ......... 7-97.4.3 Action-Specific ARARs .......... 7-9

Modern Phase I RIRevision 012/22/89 ,,,--,«AR302572

L.

IV


8,0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............... 8-18.1 GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION .............. 8-18.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............ 8-38.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............. 8-5

8.3,1 Groundwater Extraction System andGroundwater Chemistry Analysis ...... 8-5

8.3.2 Sediment Quality ............. 8-88.3.3 Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . 8-98.3.4 Air Quality ............... 8-9

8.4 RISK ASSESSMENT ................. 8-118.5 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES .............. 8-15

APPENDICES

A RESPONSE TO PADER QUESTIONS REGARDING INTEGRITY OF THESLOPE CAP

B FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE LINER SYSTEMC MODERN HOME WELL SURVEYD WETLANDS, FORM DE CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA BASEF CRQLSG CLP QA PROTOCOLH BORING LOGS AND MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTIONI GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGIC TERMSJ PACKER TEST RESULTSK SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM FIELD, TRIP, AND LABORATORY

BLANKSL TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERNM PLOTS OF RELATIVE CONCENTRATION VS. DISTANCE FOR THE

MODERN LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Modern Phase I RIRevision 0

12/22£j?302573

•o•o93a.x"

APPENDIX A

RESPONSE TO PADER COMMENTS REGARDINGINTEGRITY OF THE SLOPE CAP

flR302575

RESPONSE TO COMMENTSPROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT

MODERN SANITARY LANDFILL SLOPE CAPWINDSOR AND LOWER WINDSOR TOWNSHIPS

YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared For:WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

MODERN SANITARY LANDFILLR. D. 9, BOX 316

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17402

Prepared By:HART ENGINEERS, INC.

PENN CENTER WEST III, SUITE 106PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15276

MARCH 1988

RR302576

PennCeriterWesr H. Suite"106. P'ttsturgn, PA i527_$-_CCC" '&*2\ ^37-~i-^-

Hart Engineers, Inc.March 3, 1988

1= ^ ^Waste Management of North America, Inc.HART 1I21 Bordentown RoadrlTMxl Morrisville, Pennsylvania 19067

Attention: Mr. Vito N. Galante, P.E.New YD*. NY_ - - Regional Environmental ManagerWashington, DC -"'- " ' ,- ,-= ^ .: — .. ...-..jr •.... ;_^ -. •'••"_" -•• - - .--;--.- ; —-----Pittsburgh, W " " "-

NY._ Subject: Response CommentsNJ Modern Landfill Slope CapMl York County, Pennsylvania

"oomeeNj Permit No. 100113

Ref: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ResourcesLetter Dated December 30, 1987

Dear Mr. Galante:

Submitted herein are our responses to PADER's four (4) questionsrelative to the expected long-term performance of the Modern Landfill slopecap. In preparing these responses, we , utilized the latest documentedanalytical-procedures for computing settlement and strength characteristicsof municipal wastes. The responses to PADER's questions are presented inthe attached text supported by our calculations which are presented in theexhibits. Also included are the references and assumptions we used in theanalyses. - :

In summary, we evaluated both short- and long-term total and differen-tial settlements and the impact settlement would have on the performance ofthe liner system. We assessed the effect that gas withdrawal would have onthe performance of the cap system. In addition, we also assessed leachatecollection systems above the cap and its collection efficiency.

Using the best analytical techniques available to us, coupled withconservative assumptions and personal experience at numerous other landfillsites, it 1s my professional judgement that the capping system will performeffectively even under the unlikely conditions postulated for this analysis.We considered the natural material and geosynthetic composite cap to be thebest available technology being far superior to a clay liner cap system.

Sincerely,

HARJ^€NGINEERS, INC.

^ ^ • ^ • • ^ ^r v p ^ ^

^Jjrfftn Soschuk, Jn^ P.E./Vice President

S< TTC 'JBj/mtrAttachments

RESPONSE TO COMMENTSDECEMBER 30, 1987 LETTER FROM

PADER TO WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA

GENERAL: The synthetic slope cap system has been designed to effectivelyremove liquids which might accumulate on the cap and negate migration ofliquids through the cap. A synthetic barrier system is more effective than theconventional clay barrier cap in terms of operational and performancecharacteristics. In particular, a synthetic liner exhibits superior tensilestrength and elongation characteristics to clay in a liner system. Therefore,a synthetic liner is better suited than clay to withstand the differentialsettlement that typically occurs in a landfill due to the nature of wastematerial and its decomposition process. While there is little that can be done'to practically reduce the amount of settlement within a landfill, the use of asynthetic rather than a clay capping system can reduce the amount ofoperational and performance problems that occur due to the settlement.Furthermore, our experience has shown that an HOPE liner will not sufferdegradation when exposed to the anticipated wastes and leachates. In addition,unlike clay, any potential desiccation cracking is not an issue with asynthetic cap. Lastly, numerous tests over the past decade have consistantlyshown that geomem.branes are several orders of magnitude less permeable thaneven the best of clays.

COMMENT 1: Differential settling of waste under the slope cap and subsequenteffect on the liner.

RESPONSE: Settlement of refuse is comprised of immediate and long-termsettlement. The amount of settlement is a function of manyvariables which include but are not limited to waste composition,overburden thickness, and the availability of oxygen. Totalsettlement of the existing refuse to be capped was calculated byconsidering three sections through the refuse. The sectionsmodeled areas of maximum trash depth above the slope cap, minimum(zero) trash depth above the slope cap, and equal trash depthabove and below the slope cap. The engineering properties of thetrash and the settlement analysis procedures were obtained fromcurrent publications on sanitary landfill settlement. It wasconservatively assumed that there was no stress altenuationthrough the waste with depth and the overburden stress wasInfinite In all directions.The total settlement of the refuse at each section wascalculated. As expected the maximum settlement of approximatelysixteen (16) feet occurred where the overburden thickness wasgreatest. The minimum settlement of approximately five (5) feetwas calculated where there was no overburden (i.e. long termsettlement of the waste itself equals five (5) feet). Thesevalues are typical for municipal landfills. Although the minimumsett! ement was cal cul ated to be f 1 ve (5) feet, for a mostconservative analysis, it was assumed that some areas would not

RR302578

settle at all and that the maximum total settlement equals thefliftxlHNJ* differential settlement. Furthermore, to mostconservatively calculate liner strain, it was assumed that themaximum settlement of approximately sixteen (16) feet would occurover a small distance, i.e. the fill thickness. The calculatedmaximum liner strain due to differential settlement using thesehighly conservative assumptions was found to be less than twopercent (2%) which is much less than the acceptable strain of tenpercent (10%) for elongation at yield of an HOPE liner. In orderto cause ten percent (10%) strain in the liner, the maximumsettlement of sixteen (16) feet would have to occur at a pointlocated only thirty-five (35) feet away from a point that did notsettle at all. This configuration is highly improbable and mostunlikely. Therefore, differential settling of the waste below theslope cap does not jeopardize the integrity of the synthetic linerslope cap.In addition, the anticipated settlement of the waste under theliner is minimal compared to the overall grade of the cap,therefore positive drainage of liquid on the cap will not becompromised.Calculations are presented in Exhibit I.

COMMENT 2: Effects of the gas recovery system on settlement above and belowthe liner.

RESPONSE: Factors i nfluend ng total settlement 1n 1andf111s i ncludemechanical mechanisms, ravelling, physical-chemical changes,bio-chemical decay, and interactions between the precedingfactors.

The first component of total settlement is the immediate ormechanical settlement which occurs rapidly, typically in less thanone month. The second component of settlement 1s long term and iseffected by combinations of mechanical secondary compression,physical-chemical changes and bio-chemical decay.

The effect of a gas recovery system on landfill settlement is toprovide "conditions favorable to physical-chemical changes andbio-chemical decay thus increasing the rate of settlement. Theeffect of the gas recovery system on settlement will be toIncrease the rate of settlement and not the total amount ofsettlement.

COMMENT 3: Areas of maximum trash depth above and below the slope cap as itrelates to bearing capacity, settlement and the liner.

RESPONSE: As previously discussed in HART's Supplemental Technical Report,Geotechnical Evaluation, Modern Sanitary Landfill, resubmitted forpermit approval on September 9, 1986, the issue of "BearingCapacityn beneath 1andfi11s is not frequently addressed withdetailed Investigation and analysis due to the configuration ofthe loading and resulting stress distribution. Specifically,

AR302579

bearing capacity (shear) modes of failure tend to occur underrestively concentrated, rigidly loaded areas (concrete spread andwall footings) and usually exhibit characteristic upward surfacedisplacements. Potential shear failures of the trash above andbe3ow the slope cap are more adequately addressed by examiningslope stability shear failures rather than bearing capacity typefailures.

Therefore, additional slope stability analyses were performed on acritical cross section with circular and sliding block failuresurfaces being generated through, above, and below the slope cap.The STABL3 computer program developed by Purdue University and theIndiana Highway Commission was used to determine the factors ofsafety for potential critical failure surfaces for both static andseismic analyses. The program utilizes the Modified Bishop Methodof Slices for potential circular failure surfaces. Conservativeengineering properties were used in the analysis. The minimumfactor of safety against failure through the refuse and underlyingsoils and rock was calculated as 1.6 for static conditions and 1.4for earthquake conditions. The critical factors of safety forfailure through the cap liner system and refuse for static andearthquake conditions are 2.3 and 1.8 respectively. In general,1.5 for static conditions and 1.3 for earthquake conditions areaccepted as adequate factors of safety. Therefore, in all casesthe potential critical failure surfaces have adequate factors ofsafety. Slope stability calculations are presented in Exhibit II.Areas of maximum trash depth above and below the slope cap as itrelates to settlement and the Uner has been previously addressed1n Response to Comment 1.

COMMENT 4: The quantity of leachate collected by the slope cap system versusthe quantity of leachate expected to escape collection.

RESPONSE: The drainage net component of the synthetic slope cap system hasbeen designed to effectively remove any liquid which percolatesthrough the waste and accumulates on the cap. The impermeableHOPE liner is designed to prevent the migration of any liquidthrough the cap. It has been shown in Exhibits I and II that theIntegrity of the system will not be adversely affected bysettlement or si ope stabili ty. Therefore, the quant i ty ofleachate which is likely to infiltrate through the cap and escapeleachate collection is negligible. Since the synthetic cap systemdesign is more effective than a soil cap, the amount of leachatewhich escapes collection will be reduced.

In addition, had this area not been expanded the existing landfillwould have been capped with a soil barrier of moderatepermeability. The soil barrier would have allowed significantinfiltration into the existing landfill and a considerablequantity of leachate would have escaped collection. However, withthe vertical expansion, infiltration into the existing landfill

ftR302580

and subsequent leachate escape is as shown above greatly reducedwith a synthetic cap system. Furthermore, the new refuse abovethe synthetic cap will also be capped with an Impermeable claycap. Thus in effect, the existing landfill will now have a doublecap instead of a much less effective soil cap which willsignificantly reduce infiltration and leachate.

(MS-P-54)

RR30258

L I S T O F E X H I B I T S

EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT

I Settlement and Liner Strain Calculation

II Slope Stability Calculation

(MS-P-54)

fiR3Q258Z

E X H I B I T 1

RR3Q2583

HART ENGINEERS, INC.SHEET

/_OF_%_

SUBJECT __* '^^ ™L - 'y ' ' *U*7 *^TATU /M,_______________________ JOB NO. ________

e ™ern -rne ur*\V/\«lL area,

ex c"ri'Ar, ir-

,

coA CO \aV\on -VrtW %

I (cv aonecV cxs.

a£ -Mn

CX

• _

ore. rererv^tftJ on

•

RR30258U

SHEET

HART ENGINEERS, INC, _PAGE

SUBJECT _ O - - ' _ r r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J0i MQ.

(&sfi£AND Lis ft

NCREASE ORGANIC CONTENT

46 8 10 12 14 16INITIAL VOID RATIO

0>FIGURE 5 COMPRESSIBILITY OF WASTE:

COMPRESSION INDEX AS A FUNCTION OF INITIAL VOID RATIO

CONDITIONS FAVORABLETO DECOMPOSITION

NDITIONS UNFAVORABljTO DECOMPOSITION

VOID RATIO OF FILLSECONDARY COMPRESSION OF WASTE FILLS

FIGURE 6 CONTINUING (SECONDARY) COMPRESSION OF WASTE FILLS

flR302585

SHEET

L.QF_S__

== *" B *Q'—————„—— __—— =r^Aj .-9j"i/v/~T~»K:N L>*jvi_ir-/£_i_ JQ§ MO. _______

"Voc4 z

\s"W fa* *S Cc. •» S"

.s

tCO to

S.STL

z.e'

RR302586

Ff £lV2~ £

ri 2N N *'HART ENGINEERS, INC.

SHEET

*V ^-7 OF -* PAGE

TOTAU

.-= \S4V 0rN cross

PV.\Z

A. 1 (MS)-

Ssto.-\«\> _ . .»

., -Ve<yv\<->

assuMeo- ^ c VA a\ d/ criaoj1 *ur CC.:CW/C-T'O.I 3"

r. Tin, . e, o--\cv4t» L

RR302587

SY__S.i^X>___ OATE_£-:<_Si3_SH££T

HART ENGINEERS. INC. .Sl0f_SPAGE

SUBJECT _XiI2iffiRPi. ruiMjf J-nciiiraw*_______________ JOB NO

iv\er

cx £SurMAe\ o\ ~vrx.ec? poVAT ciV we Iv.Acr iv ercorto ernooe e// Z ,.,^ ISZ.O -Veer / \gne- ISMS ee-V J

\SSS-\S2-o ,

ConoluSxVQ_. ....___. „...._.

10\ o- r -Woe

. oreocV w\

.. ^ .^ v » A'tfer rtA-vrtL\ re\VU*v» T r 14kft

iT OU€T CV f^

5 85'

bv\er»Cap ore uer^ c.Q/iserucv-ffVe ber-o re wey ore bai C'

RR302588

E X H I B I T I I

AR302589

SHEETFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC. , OF

SUBJECT-JlI^^Cg^J^^n^EtJ-ANO.FtLL._______________________ JOB MO.____________

Aces

w

prepafed W^ *WT ,ce f m^ op»raOcx\ ^l^lSfej po. \

A. , *No.

Count ( PVT7S.

• AR302590

Cl\——. DATE FRED C.SHEET

SUBJECT __r_L£H£fcSi^H_:rt.nrii-l—£L*€ii_!W3LGiy£-Uste__________________JQ1

A nc-

reA/re s4a4rc

Cose z c\Tcu\or -roV^cood» V»or»s

Co e ) c\'rc\J\o.r--?oArre soc^ace M rooaj rertwse o/«i under!jt'r -

Case H\ c\ re u\or -?OL\ \\Kecv»(ier\u i n^ ^OT\ | f oclc

Ccxse. s) U"

Co-se G) -sink/id yock-?o\lvjre poss^nAeo r-rvo uc

occlusionF, S. Accee&Ae F. S.

I l.&Z. t'SZ W3T7 l.S

3 >\.&Z. \,S

4 >\."S"7 \.SS Z. o USG \.~IS US

AR30259

HARTSHEET

'_QF_]'PAGE

SUBJECT _ a o - i i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JOB MO.

ion

crOCS -S CTioo 2-"2. OC ••S'SoiAV} 0/9

-r mal slope eoflCrguteA"io/i u;he/"e

refuse

A ssu e -Moe phreodrc .rurVace as ^ ouv/i o-o cress*ttf\e aJ&êr-Vaê4o -VW SAC) o1

& ££<j*\ to 'i' Ires \^J bove

o*e o-?v (see p. to c£ rrf,eiv/ a s.uw>t -VKei

r -<oi\ /fock. keoecvV-K -Woe, lancl-fcU lêr N^Hnsee Mo re?-

0-C - O

Trig, Wner s -e/n sViouJO beôw uf\\ te oêtJ-C. See W/«j.-H«3l- Sv-7, c - " feSMS©-

\Z-U ro4ecArve cover• •-"• -*TKT r-n .-. .-s TSfF,-,,5OQQ S _ fco";1 •- " PN3ooo)

______T^-6R302592.

FKED C. HART ASSOCIATES, CMC.SHEET

SUBJECT _j^&^^»^û^J£3_â™ye:iWr_____________ JOB NO.___31_£cg

onc\\es-?or e abcue cross secTtoo ore a£ -(f-MV re" ' * v ,

y> ( re^.

HDPE. co-ecfN/e cover rr* . Z3S

oer -VfY^Trbo aog/e /s

•Hoco'-VU

ex o/ie O ) TOO"T seucio £t>( I

A- be\ovo£rvc4toA 0 9' e 5 ore -Cc r cê>r -l-es s

\ ^ 3 ec -ar o « < i copTI'

ftR302593ore OTCTIOT* ooet

J

SHEET

S_ofJS_f~)\*~,-7\J\G

DATE

Meee.g*/.SUBJECT _ .. _____________ JOB no

r -rnS 4t\( o« ft>« "TV>e

para Te crr u eo ( f Mo, U^e r<?c*eoiW /v»-Vo//iia4r«*A -tneieicn

be.

-U-je Sft.MV ^loe^; -SJrdrtnA block

- & block »rv7A/\i"puWTTV>cj t e Q-OCIt. Co/n/Hw J, U/? y -M

ax\ -racAt>r

Caie V

e

Ofe

— oo ou f

SHEETFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.

SUBJECT _ _ _ . ______________________ J O t » 0 . _________

____ Z

* Pseudo - sVoA-rc eacVtar ocOce coe^rcreA-r^ -forr

were -rakeA -£roM re^C- S^ . T^e Sf-k. s)

onrefuse

Tne c ois ecrlon osecicxslope

rv e evJCCTioA Cb TOOTr

. Ho3\-E\o

lev.

AR302595

FLUID SYSTEMS, INC.

CQMPRSSSIBXLrrT • . - ' . . -AJ detailed is the transnissivity charts, POLY-NET can sustain

overburden pressures of 20,000 psf while maintaining a significantsafety factor over EPA mininums. 20,000 psf can b« roughly correlatedto a 172 foot landfill depth.

COMPATIBILITY (CHEMICAL) tflTH VAST2 LIQUIDThe resin used to manufacture POLY-NET is the same as Is used

by one of the top 2 HOPS liner companies in thft U.S. The resin hasbeen 90/90 compatibility tested. If the HDPE liner is acceptable,then so should be POLY-N2T,

COMPATIBILITY (MECHAHICAL) WITH FML LIKERS

Tests were run on POLY-NET to assess any passible damage tothe liner. Under a sustained load of 20,000 psf * after 10 days ina 60 ail HDPE liner/net 60 ail HDPE liner profile, indentations inth* liner of 2.0-2.5 sails were measured and considered negligible.

Compared to conventional aggregate systems, sets are superior.The possibility of puncture due to sharp aggregate, or puncture ofthe liner from earth moving. equipment, spreading the aggregate isnegated. • ' -' • -•- . • " _ _ _''

SLOPE STABILITY '; - '

-- -j The friction angle of POLY-HET on HDPE liner is approximately17 . The tensile strength (breaking strength) of POLY-HET is superiorto other drainage nets available.

Depending on the slope and profile and materials used (includingaggregate), any landfill should be checked for slope stability.There have been many successful installations of drainage nee onvarious slope angles*

COKSTU7CTIOV CHAJLACTEKMSTICS

EASE 0? CQHSTRDCTIOH

Drainage net is less likely to damage the HDPE membrane thansharp aggregate.Installation is easy, the net is simply rolled out and tiedtogether with plastic ties. No overlap is necessary on slopes.On the bottom of the cell a 2" to 4" overlap is recommended.With conventional aggregate, operators have to be very carefulnot to damage liners, especially on slopes.Steeper slopes are possible with netQuality Control of drainage net can be performed by visualinspection. Aggregate thickness is difficult to maintain,difficult to place and may be affected by varying materials andweather conditions.

-AR3-02595

STABILITY ANALYSIS— " »SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES 3 15

IRREGULAR FAILURE SURFACES

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION MOD1AMODERN SANITARY LANDFILLCIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACESFACTORS OF SAFETY BY THE MODIFIED BISHOP METHC!STATIC ANALYSIS

BOUNDARY COORDINATES . .13 TOP BOUNDARIES53 TOTAL BOUNDARIES

BOUNDARY X-LEFT Y-LEFT X-RIGHT Y-RIGHT SOIL TYPENO. CFT) <;FT> CFT) CFT:» BELOW BNDi .00 S-O-.OQ so. oo 544,00 i2 30.OO 544.00 58.00 542.00 13 58.OO 542.OO 106.OO 54O.OO 14 106.OO 54O.00 116.OO 545.OO 15 116.00 545.00 161.OO 545.OO 16 16 LOO 545.00 275.00 583. OO 2.7 275.OO 583.00 315.OO 583.OO 2 '8 315.00 583,00 446.OO 627.OO 23 446.00 627.OO 486.00 £27.00 21O 486.00 627.OO 585.00 660.OO 211 535.00 66O.00 1085.00 692„OO 212 1085.00 692.00 1770.00 696.OO 213 177O.00 696.OO 221O.OO 69O.OO 214 151.00 545.00 233.OO 520,50 315 233.00 520.50 688.OO 526.2O 3IS 688.00 526.20 693.OO 526.20 317 693.00 526.20 736.OO 535.OO 318 736.OO 535.0O 750.OO 54O.OO 31S 750.OO 54O.OO 790.OO 550.OO 320 79O.OO 550.00 837.OO 56O.OO 321 837.OO 56O.OO 372.OO "570,00 322 872.OO S7O.OO 94O.OO 58O.OO 323 94O.OO 580.00 104O.OO 59O.OO 324 104O.OO 59O.OO 119O.OO 6OO.OO 325 119O.QO 6OO.OO 129O.OO 61O.OO 32S 129O.OO 610.00 1365.OO 620.OO 327 1355.OO 62O.00 1455.OO S3O.OO 32S 1455.00 630.OO 2210.00 69O.OO 323 160.00 545.00 161.00 544.00 13O 161.OO 544.00 233.00 519.50 131 233.OO 519.50 688.OO 525.20 132 6SB.OO 525.20 693.00 525.2O i33 693.OO 525.2O 736.OO 534.OO 234 736.00 534.00 75O.OO 539.OO 235 750,00 539.OO 79O.OO 549.OO 236 790.00 549.00 837.00 559.OO 237 837.00 559.00 872.00 569.OO 238 872.00 569.00 940.00 579.00 239 _ 94O.OO 579.. OO 104O.OO 589. OO 24O 104O.OO 589.OO 1190.OO 599.OO 241 119O.OO 599.0O 129O.OO 6O9.OO 242 129O.OO 6O9.00 1365.OO 619.0O 243 1365. OO 619.00 1455. OO 629. OO . n O Tl 9 Q 744 1455.00 629.00 2210.00 689.00 ft R L ° '«15 S93.0O 525.20 950. OO 530.00 1

540.00OBT- ggrqtqg -rrffffi .pa....

48 1260.OO 550.00 1460.00 56O.OO 149 146O.OO 56O.OO 1550.OO 57O.OO 1SO 155O.OO 570.OO 169O.OO 58O.00 13t- 169O.OO 58O.OO 1S2O.OO 59O.OO 152 1S20.OO 590.00 1971.OO 60O.OO 133 1971.OO 6OO.OO 2210.OO 605.OO 1

1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACECS) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED

UNITWEISHT OF WATER = 62.4O

PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE NO. 1 SPECIFIED BY 12 COORDINATE POINTS

POINT X-WATER Y-WATERNO. CFT) <FT>

1 .00 507.OO2 512.OO 51O.OO3 748.00 517.0O4 877.00 537.005 12OO.OO 564.OOS 1260.0O 569.007 1460.00 579.OO8 1550.00 589.OO9 1690.00 599.001O 1820.OO 6O9.OO11 - 1971.00 619.OO12 ._ 221O.OO 524.OO

1 - ISOTRQPIC SOIL PARAMETERS

3 TYPECS) OF SOIL

SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE - PRESSURE PZOMETRIC

TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANTURFACE

NO. CPCF) CPCF) CPSF) CDEG) PARAMETER CPSF)NO.

12O. O 125.0 .0 28.0 .00 .01fepVSS 2 45.0 45.0 .O 25.0 .OO .0

13 120.0 120.0 .0 17.0 . OO .0

A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOMTECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED.

25 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED.

5 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 5 POINTS EQUALLY SPACEDALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 110.OO FT.

AND X = 275.OO FT.O.O-

AND X = 210.00 FT.

F L1M11AUUNS WERE IMPOSEDr THE "MINIMUM ELEVATIONSURFACE EXTENDS IS Y » . OO FT.

SO.Otf FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE.

1 FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIALFAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICALFIRST.

SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD.

FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 3 COORDINATE POINTS

POINT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT) CFT)

1 1S2.5O 555.SO2 221.77 562.093 225.53 566.51

* 1 £"3*3 +**> l • boo *•»••*•

FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 1O COORDINATE POINTS

PO I NT X -SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT) CFT)

1 233.75 569.252 263. 6O 566.213 - 233. 6O 566.054 .323.47 568.795 352.94 574.38&.*. 381.74 582.797 4O9.6O 593.93& 436.25 6O7.709 461.45 623.9710 465.28 627.00

F, S- ***

AR302599

TRIAL SURFACES "HAVE .'tiEEN 'GENERATED.

5 SURFACES INITIATE FROM tr'ACM '> ^-PniNO-J H3UAH/,' '.I-AI>QALONG T* GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 161. OO FT.

AND X = 561. OO FT.

• .'M-M '-IJRFACE TERMINATES B&TW££N"- - X '-» -3QO.OO FT.——— -AND X -2210.OO FT.

UNLESS KUKIHHR "LIMITATIONS Ui-.Ki- . ; i: - =• ,- •:•,. t H£ MINIMUM ELEVAi IONAT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = .OO FT.

FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIALFAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICALFIRST. ' -------- - - - - ^-— ----- =- .-=,-.-. -..--.



PO INT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT> "- "'TFT)

1 -361. OO 598.452 3yt>.:-3S 604. OO3 388.50 " 6O7.69

Ccxse\*** -.S- 1.620 *

AR302600

COEFFICIENTASSIGNED

THQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENTOF . V a C E N AS3[GN6D-

.O PSFSURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A PANOOH

FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES* HAS SEEN SPECIFIED.fc. —ij_- f -fr *.' -> . - - •». _ _ ...*,_,—— m W * — - ». t i .__ . - . . . _.


S SURFACES INITIATE FKCjrTc.ACH OF 5 KUlNIb fUUALLY SPACEDAIJJMU rH£ ijKMJNLJ ..;.„-:,,..: ,". !!-iiM, X = iftl.c;(» t l,

AND X = 3fet.OO"F f.

EACH SURFACE TLFMrwAl^S tte I Wt l£N X a •JfX'.Ut.V J; I'.AND X -2210.00 FT.

UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATIONAT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y - .00 FT.

23,00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE.

FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIALFAILURE SURFACES EXAni.Mt.D. THEY ARE ORDERED ~ .in:.i UHI FECALFIRST.



POINT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT) CFT)

fcv .- 361. OO 599.452*"'-' 385.33 604. OO3 388.SO 507.69

V.ix 1.372 ***

" Sfe,l£-(D^ \FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 3 COORDINATE POINTS

POINT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT) CFT>

1 161.OO 343.OO2 134.41 336.233 209.17 332.774 234.09 534.785 297.99 342.16S 279.63 354.367 299.17 371.393 3O6.34 383.OO

*** f.S" 1* 21 ***

see

AR302601

A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOMTECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING SLIDING BLOCK SURFACES, HAS BEENSPECIFIED.


5 BOXES SPECIFIED FOR GENERATION OF CENTRAL BLUCK

LENGTH OF LINE SEGMENTS FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PORTIONS OFSLIDING BLOCK IS 25.0

BOX X-LEFT - Y-LEFT : X-RIGHT Y-RIGHT . WIDTHNO. CFT3 CFT> CFT) CFT) <FT>

1 232. SO 520.00 233, 1O 52O.OO 1- OO2 687.90 5'. 70 S88. 1C Sxs. 70 1. . OO3 692.90 525.70 693.10 525.70 1 . OO4 735.90 534.50 736. 10 534.50 i.OO5 " 749. 9O 539. 50 750. 10 539. 50 1 . 00FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIALFAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICALFIRST. • - • • • " - - — - - - - -

* *• SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * *


POINT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. CFT) (FT)

1 182.64 552.212 19O.24 545.743 212.43 534.234 232.94 519.935 688.OS 525.696 693.Ol 525.547\ 736.07 534.198 /50.00 539.953 766.9O 558.371O' 783.06 577.45ri ...... 735,21 . . . . 599.2912 812.37 .. *16. '3913 829.61 635.5614 -845.83 654.5815 859.74 675.3616 861.O6 677.67

Cose 5K-S-2.303 *#*

*

ftR302602


PQ INT X -SURF Y-SURFNO. <:FT> CFI;

l 1/1 . ,- l :j4G. 402 189.59 53Q.743 214. 5O 536.554 232.94 519.675 SS7.91 326.086 693. OO 526.157 736.06 534.52S 749.97 539.789 76 1 . 62 56 i . 9O10 778.74 580.1111 795.82 598.3712 813.41 616.1413 827.49 63S. 79-14 843.10 65S-.32'15 860.74 S74.0316 852.22 677.74

*** V.S.- 2.315 ***

AR302603

A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENTOF .050 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED

A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENTOF .000'-HAS BEEN ASSIGNED

CAVITATION PRESSURE = .0 PSFA CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOMTECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING SLIDING BLOCK SURFACES, HAS BEENSPECIFIED',! ' - - ~ — - - ————— - - - -- -


5 BOXES SPECIFIED FOR GENERATION OF CENTRAL BLOCK BASE

LENGTH OF LINE SEGMENTS FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PORTIONS OFSLIDING BLOCK-IS 25.O

BOX X-LEFT Y-LEFT X-RIGHT Y-RIGHT WIDTHNO. CFT) CFT) CFT) CFT) CFT5

1 -232.9O 520.OO 233.10 520.00 1.002 687.90 525.70 688.10 525.70 1.OO3 ----S92.9O 525.7O 693.10 525.70 1.OO4 735.9O 534.50 736.10 534.SO 1.OO5 743.9O 539.50 750.1O 539.5O 1.OOFOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIALFAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICALFIRST. " "^——----—

* * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD

FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY'16 COORDINATE POINTS

POINT X-SURF Y-SURFNO. 'CFT) CFT)

1 - 182.64 552.212 19O.24 545.743 212.43 534.234 232.94 513.935 —688.06 525.696 693.01 525.547 736.07 534.138 75O.OO 533.359 766.90 558.3710 783.O6 577.4511 795.21 593.2912 912.87 616.9913 -- B29.61 635.5614 845.83 654.5815 853.74 675.3616 861.O6 677.67

Case RR3Q26QU

XT OUT

PEVtt a ATE . DESCRIPTION APP'O

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

ORWN TF* CHK'D fiCf^ APP'D

SCALg AS SHOWN DATE -1-13-^:3

PROPOSED 5iTE DEVELOPMENT21 .ACRE NORTH AREA LANDFfLL EXPANSION

MODERN SANITARY LANDFILLWINDSOR AND LOWER WINDSOR TWPS.,

YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAart AWING NUMBER

:— j . -> 7 i ,— ;— .- LANDFILL CROSS SECTION 2-2 r " *"- C. I

j

1

C

•o•o»Q.X

fiR302606

APPENDIX B

FINITE ELEMEKT ANALYSIS OP THE LINER SYSTEM

flR302607

GEOSERVICES INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS5950 LIVE OAK PARKWAY, SUITE 330

NORCROSS, GEORGIA. USA 30093; ' ' TELEPHONE: (404) 448-5400

TELEFAX: (404) 368-0447

5 December 1989 ™* 759285

Mr. Kevin McKeon, P.E,Waste Management of North America, Inc.1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisville, Pennsylvania 19067

Subject: Finite Element Analysis of Liner SystemModern Landfill Northern ExpansionGeoServices Project Number: P1289-01GeoServices Document Number: N890726

Dear Mr. McKeon,

As you requested, GeoServices Inc. Consulting Engineers (GeoServices)has conducted finite element analyses of the proposed lining system forthe Modern Landfill Northern Expansion (Northern Expansion) in York,Pennsylvania. The purpose of the analyses was to assess the effect oflocal settlement in the previously placed waste on the integrity of theHDPE geomembrane lining system.

This letter report summarizes the results of the finite elementanalyses and presents our conclusions as to the effect of local wastesettlement on the integrity of the overlying lining system.

This letter report is organized as follows:

• Section 1 provides background information;

• Section 2 presents the analysis methodology and a summary ofresults; and

• Section 3 presents our conclusions on the effect of local wastesettlement on the integrity of the overlying lining system.

AR30260

GEOSERVICES INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS

II

1. BACKGROUND

The objective of the analyses described in this report is to evaluatethe ability of the proposed lining system for the Northern Expansion tomaintain its integrity and provide leachate containment should localdifferential settlements develop in the underlying waste. A typicalsection of the proposed Northern Expansion lining system is shown inFigure 1 at the end of this report. As shown in Figure 1, the liningsystem for the Northern Expansion will be separated from the existingwaste by at least 12 in. (0.3 m) of previously placed intermediate andfinal cover.

Filling of the expansion area and decomposition of the previouslypiaced waste will cause total and d i fferent i al sett1ements of thepreviously placed waste. The settlements of most concern with respect tothe integrity of the lining system are those associated with localizeddifferential movements of the previously placed waste. These differentialmovements could be due to the localized decomposition of a pocket ofwaste, or to placement of compressible and rigid pieces of waste in closeproximity to each other.

For the purpose of evaluating the integrity of the HOPE geomembraneliner, hypothetical, worst-case scenarios were assumed; the scenariosassume development of a "void" or abrupt discontinuity in the wasteimmediately below the intermediate cover following installation of theexpansion area lining system. For the analyses in this report, the "void"in the previously placed waste was assumed to be filled with a materialthat is extremely compressible relative to the rest of the waste; it isvery unlikely that a true "void" of any significant size would everdevelop in the waste. Analyses were conducted, as described below, toevaluate the strains induced in the expansion area lining system due todevelopment of the hypothetical, worst-case "void" or discontinuity. Ifthe analyses result in acceptable levels of tensile strain in the lining

N890726

AR30260


III

system (i.e., in the HDPE geomembrane) for the hypothetical, worst-casescenarios, they should result in acceptable strains in the lining systemunder the actual field conditions.

2. ANALYSIS

2.1 Conditions Analyzed

The lining system cross-section shown in Figure 1 was considered forthe analyses presented herein. This system consists of the followingcomponents from top to bottom:

• 2-ft (0.6-m) thick protective cover/drainage layer;

• 16 oz/yd2 (550 g/m2) needlepunched nonwoven geotextile;

• woven geotextile (weight unknown);

• polyethylene geonet drainage layer; and

• 60-mil (1.5-mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner.

As noted above, the assumed scenario involves development of a "void"or abrupt discontinuity in the existing waste immediately beneath thepreviously placed intermediate cover. All analyses presented in thisreport were two-dimensional plane strain analyses; thus any "void" ordiscontinuity in the waste was of infinite extent in the direction normalto the cross section (i.e., in the direction into the page on Figure 1).

For the analyses, the following assumptions were made with respect tothe hypothetical, worst-case "void" and abrupt discontinuity:

N890726

AR3Q26IQ


IV

• a 6 ft by 6 ft (1.8 m by 1.8 m) square "void" opens in thepreviously placed waste just after construction of the NorthernExpansion lining system (a "void" of this size is believed to belarger than any that could reasonably be expected in well-compacted solid waste); and

• a 1 ft (0.3 m) deep abrupt discontinuity develops in thepreviously placed waste just after construction of the NorthernExpansion lining system (an abrupt discontinuity of this size isbelieved to be larger than any that could reasonably be expectedin well-compacted solid waste).

The load applied to the lining system overlying the previously placedwaste was assumed to be equal to that exerted by a height of 70 ft (21 m)of newly placed waste. It is noted, however, that the results of theanalyses presented in this report would not change significantly if asomewhat greater height of waste were considered. The previously placedwaste was assumed to have a thickness of 23 ft (7 m), which is less thanthe maximum value that will underlie the Northern Expansion lining system.The thickness of previously placed waste has only a very minor influenceon the localized differential settlement analyses described herein.Overall settlement of the system is dependent on the thickness ofpreviously placed waste; localized differential settlement is not. Onlylocalized differential settlement is addressed in this report.

2.2 Method of Analysis

The finite element method was used to conduct the analyses in thisreport. The finite element method involves modeling a structure (such asa landfill) using small interconnected elements called fniitenements,Every interconnected element is linked, directly or indirectly, to everyother element through common (or shared) interfaces, including nodes,boundary lines and surfaces. The stress-strain properties of the material

N890726

/SR3026I


making up each element of the structure is specified. The stresses anddeformations of each element are mathematically calculated based on theproperties of the elements, the relationships between elements, and theimposed boundary conditions (i.e., the loads and/or deformations imposedon the elements making up the boundaries of the structure being analyzed).Numerical Integration of the deformations of each element gives theoverall deformation of the entire structure. Appendix A to this reportprovides a detailed discussion of the finite element method.

The finite element computer code SSCOHP [Seed and Duncan, 1984] wasused to conduct the analyses described in this report. SSCOMP wasdeveloped at the University of California, Berkeley. An explanation ofthe SSCOMP program is included in Appendix B. SSCOHP is a general, plane-strain, soil-structure interaction program for static analyses ofgeotechnical problems. The program incorporates the hyperbolic stress-strain model of Duncan et al. [1980] to model the nonlinear and stress-dependent properties of soil, waste, or other particulate media. AppendixC includes a description of the hyperbolic stress-strain model from Duncanet al. [1980].

Three types of elements were used to model the waste and liningsystem:

• Solid ele'nients: Solid elements (i.e., for the previously placedwaste, the material filling the "void", the new waste, theprotective cover/drainage layer and intermediate cover soil) arefour node, two dimensional, isoparametric elements; the stress-strain behavior of solid elements is governed by the hyperbolicstress-strain model.

• Bar elements: Bar elements are linear-elastic two node elementswith axial stiffness only (i.e., no flexural or shear resistance).Bar elements are used to model the HDPE geomembrane.

N890726

AR3Q26I2


VI

• Interface elements: Interface elements are zero thicknesselements that are used to model the interface between the soil andHDPE geomembrane (they allow slip between the geomembrane andadjacent soil). The shear stress-deformation behavior of theinterface elements is governed by a hyperbolic stress-deformationmodel.

The mesh used for the finite element analyses is shown in Figure 2.The smaller elements In the center of the mesh represent a "void" area inthe previously placed waste. The smaller elements are required toaccurately define the element stresses and deformations in this region.The placement of a 70 ft (21 m) thickness of new waste is accomplishedwith seven increments of 10 ft (3 m) each successively placed over thelining system.

For the analyses described in this report, the geotextile and geonetlayers were not modeled. It is conservative to neglect the presence ofthese materials in the analyses. Both materials have some (albeit small)tensile strength. If they were included in the analyses, they wouldslightly decrease the strains induced in the lining system. By neglectingthe geonet and geotextile layers, the finite element mesh is significantlysimplified.

2.3 Soil Properties _ ...... ,

The intermediate and final cover soil was assumed to be a silty clay(i.e., CL) using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Thismaterial was modeled as having a cohesion of 200 psf (9.6 kPa) and afriction angle of 30*. (Note: all shear strength and stress-strainparameters in this report are total stress parameters.) The hyperbolicparameters for this material were estimated using recommendations byDuncan et al. [1980].

N890726

AR30261,


VII

The protective cover/drainage layer was assumed to be AASHTO No. 8aggregate (i.e., GP) based on the USCS. This material was modeled ashaving no cohesion and a friction angle of 40". The hyperbolic parametersfor the soil were assumed to be those provided by Duncan et al. [1980]for a sandy gravel.

The properties of the previously placed waste and new waste were basedon parameters provided by Waste Management of North America, Inc. (WMNA).These values are consistent with values used by GeoServices on previousprojects. A cohesion of 400 psf (19.2 kPa) was assumed for the wastematerials. Based on operating practices at WMNA landfills (i.e., WMNAstrives to achieve a high degree of waste compaction), a cohesion meetingor exceeding this value should be obtained. Friction angles of 25*and 20"were assumed for the new waste and previously placed waste, respectively,and these are consistent with values reported in the technical literature.The hyperbolic parameters for the previously placed and new waste wereestimated based on values from data provided by Duncan et al. [1980] forpoorly compacted soils. The material initially filling the "void" in thewaste was made to be very compressible; it was assigned initial stiffnessand bulk modulus values of approximately one tenth of those of thesurrounding waste, a friction angle of 0*, and a cohesion of 40 psf (1.9.kPa). For reasons of numerical stability in the finite element model, thematerial initially filling the 1-ft (0.3-m) deep discontinuity was givenslightly less compressible properties, including a friction angle of 8*and a cohesion of 60 psf (2.9 kPa).

A parametric study was conducted of the effect of waste and "void"properties on the calculated geomembrane strains. It was found thatrelatively large variations in properties had only a small effect on thestrains in the HDPE geomembrane.

Conservative values for the hyperbolic parameters for different soilsare included in a table in Appendix D. These values are called

N890726

flR3026U


VIII

conservative in the sense that they are typical of the lower values ofstrength and modulus; and the higher values of unit weight for each typeof soil, based on the data compiled by Duncan et al. [1980]. The wasteand soil properties and hyperbolic parameters used in the analyses aresummarized in Table 1.

The hyperbolic parameters for the interface elements are based onthose used by Ad1b [1988] for a geomembrane in contact with a silty clay.A table from Adib [1988] is included in Appendix E. These parameters are:

• adhesion, a - 0;

• friction angle, 0 - 12*;

• normal spring coefficient » 1 x 108 (dimensionless);

• shear spring coefficient » 3500 (dimensionless);

• unloading spring coefficient = 5250 (dimensionless);

• modulus exponent » 1.0 (dimensionless); and

• failure ratio - 0.9 (dimensionless).

The axial stiffness of the geomembrane (i.e., bar elements) was chosento be low enough so as not to influence the behavior of the soil systemor provide reinforcing. An axial stiffness of 6,850 Ib/ft (100 kN/m) wasassumed for the geomembrane. The axial stiffnesses of the geonet andgeotextile materials are much less than that of the geomembrane and werenot modeled In the analysis, as previously described. Their exclusion isconservative (i.e., as previously noted, if the geonet and geotextilelayers were modeled, the strains in the lining system would be slightlyreduced).

N890726

AR302615


IX

2.4 Results of the Analyses

The deflected shape of the HDPE geomembrane liner resulting from the6 ft by 6 ft (1.8 m by 1-.8 m) "void" is shown at true and exaggeratedvertical scale in Figure 3. The deflected shape of the HOPE geomembraneliner resulting from the 1-ft (0.3-m) deep abrupt discontinuity is shownat true scale in Figure 4. Calculated peak tensile and compressivestrains in the geomembrane are summarized in Table 2. The values givenin Figures 3—and 4 and Table 2 represent hypothetical, worst-caseconditions. With WMNA operating practices, the development of a 6 ft (1.8m) square "void" or 1-ft (0.3-m) deep abrupt discontinuity is believed tobe unlikely. The actual localized differential settlements in the fieldshould be Ies5— than those assumed for the analyses presented in thisreport.

The results of the finite element analyses show that the waste-soil-geomembrane system is quite deformable. The deformability of the systemas a whole limits the magnitudes of the tensile strains for evenhypothetical, worst-case scenarios. Calculated peak tensile strains areonly 0.5% for a 6 ft by 6 ft (1.8 m by 1,8 m) "void" and 1.2% for a 1-ft(0.3-m) deep abrupt discontinuity. A further degree of conservatismresults from the plane strain nature of the analyses. Three-dimensionalanalyses, which are more representative but more complex than two-dimensional analyses, would result in lower tensile strains in thegeomembrane than calculated herein [Giroud et al., 1988].

3. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis results indicate that in all cases the maximum tensilestrain in the HDPE geomembrane (i.e., in the bar elements), calculatedfor hypothetical, worst-case, conditions are between 0.5% and 1.2%, Theminimum tensile strain at yield for a 60-mil (1.5-mm) thick HDPEgeomembrane in uniaxial tension is in the range of 10% to 15%. (Uniaxial

N890726


the appropriate HDPE geonembranetraln n * ^ 3t yield 1saverage value for tensile sr ia ^ f<Jr des1gn' A ty"1calthe strains under hypothetical ir/t, " I ** Sh<3Wn °n Figurs 5'times 1 than the'S ^ ^ ! 0n 1° •« »« than tenthe results of the flnVt. 0T * ra1" at yie1d' Based °"discontinuities of the h± H a n a l y S 6 S ' "V°1ds" and ^ruptadversely affect thettear , SJ"S ana1y"d here1n sho«^ notcapabiiity °f *•

CLOSURE

N890726

(

n to work wmPlease contact one of t " " ""^ addUi°nal '""""tion

Sincerely,

Heldi L. Rubin M .Staff Engineer Makram Jaber, Ph.D.

Assmant Project Engineer

Rudy Bonaparte,Principal

AR3025I7

REFERENCES

Adib, M.E., "Internal Lateral Earth Pressure in Earth #a77s", Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Cal ifornia, Berkeley, September 1988, pp. 158-160.

Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K.S., and Mabry, P., "Strength? Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of Stressesand Movements in Soil Masses",,,_ Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, CA, 1980, pp. 50-65.

Giroud, J.P., "Analysis of Stresses and Elongations in Geomembranes",Proceedings of International Conference on Geomembranes, Volume II,Denver, Colorado, June 1984, pp. 481-486.

Giroud, J.P., Bonaparte, R,, Beech, J.F,., and Gross, 8.A., "Load CarryingCapacity of a Soil Layer Supported by a Geosynthetic Overlying a Void",Proceedings of Kyushu International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory andPractice of Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka City, Japan, Oct 1988, pp. 185-190. - : - - -

Seed, R.B. and Duncan, J.M., "SSCOMP: a Finite Element Analysis Programfor Evaluation of Soil Structure Interaction and Compaction Effects",Report No. UCB/GT/84-02, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1984.

Seed, R.B., Mitchell, O.K., and Seed, H.B., "Slope Stability FailureInvestigation: Landfill Unit B-29, Phase I-A, Chemical Waste ManagementInc. Facility, Kettleman Hills, California", University of California,Berkeley, Oune 1988, pp. 41-46.

N890726

6R3026I8

COenLUI-LU2<OL<CL

OCO

UJaLU <> 2f- < a:

UJ

tu2:

Qo

Q CC

UJLU

H O <

>• 2£ o 5y m h-

=! X <o cc a-co O

07_ C

°= - a

oO •* O O O o O _ : N-O o O ^ ^ O ^ o O w- eu "* o o --^ o ^ i c r )

o cc £O cc -*CC LUa. >Oo

LU< 5Q COUl —

~ ' " oiSo' ""^ o

oto

«co <P

0 0 0 O^ ; z < O h - w i nen do o"

D ^ - ^ J i i C D W . < » 1 J qj^1™ —** 33 ^^ i« "*i; * Q £ 2 ^ 7 *^— - D T ? - « « . < u J O ^ S 3 C S B

- - ! ! 2 I I If - ^ i" I f * * i

AR302619

DC

Q.

• •<N

LU

<H

LU

CO T^ CO

S££ 5 §0.0.1-^ CO

CO I OO

LU< CO <LU Z eg

— >»co tNLiJ

CO<° ' §

~ OCD C W

§ >•§•._ (D OJ

oO)CO

AR302620

4ASSUMED LINER SYSTEM

CROSS-SECTION

z.CNEW)WASTE

2-0 PROTECTIVE COVER/DRAINAGE LAYERCAASHfO N0.8 AGGREGATE)

16 O2. NONWOVENGEOTEXTILEWOVEN GEOTEXTILE

GEONETGO MIL HDPE

KO INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL ^GEOMEMBRANE LINERCOVER (PREVIOUSLY PLACED)

? (PREVIOUSLY PLACED)' I." tA/ACTg ••——*yWASTE

NTS

DOCUMENT NO. N890726CONSULTING ENGINEERS

FIGURE NO. 1PROJECT NO. P1289-01

FINITE ELEMENT MESH USED FOR ANALYSES

NTS

LEGEND

J PROTECTIVE COVER/DRAINAGE LAYER (AA$HTO NO. 8 AGGREGATE)1 NEW WASTE

r i O L D WASTEGEOMEMBRANE

J VOID MATERIAL0 INTERMEDIATE COVER/COMPACTED SUBBASE

DOCUMENT NO. N890726CONSULTING ENGINEERS

FIGUfle NO.PROJECT NO. P 1289-01

HDPE GEOMEMBRANE LINER DEFLECTED SHAPES

B.OO

4'°° -1 HI OF VOID

2.00

0.00

-4.00

•9.00

Note:

- — -— .X

•N\\\\

i

t

60 mH HOPE GEOUEU8RANE UNERy-DEFL£CTED INTO & X & VOID

'— ^ "

, ' ——— Tru« Vertical Seal*,/ __ . _ < f. i. -i **.-------••-*• «. •_ vvtical cxaggwotic////

^

Horizontal KS"ance (fQ°° ^ 6a°°

SCALE * HORIZONTAL 1" - 1 1*VERTICAL 1". 4*

of ,in.r ,nto , 8 ft wide Cx.direction) x .


FIGURE NO. 3PROJECT NO. P1289-01DOCUMENT NO. N89Q7Jfi

30LOQ -,

20.00

-20,00

HDPE GEOMEMBRANE LINER DEFLECTED SHAPES

. OF ABRUPTDISCONTINUITY

ABRUPT DISCONTINUITY

True Vertical ScaleVertical Exaggeration x 10X

SCALE-1M = 11'

Note: t ft deep CY-directionJ discontinuity at X«3o'n.— ^ *

FIGURE NO. 4"

INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS

PROJECT NO P1289-01DOCUMEfPAGE NO.

15.00

STRAIN IN HDPE GEOMEMBRANE UNER

TENSILE STRAIN ATVIELO FOR DESIGN =* 13«

— 6' x 6* void1-ft discontinuity

20 . , . •JU *0 50Height of New Waste (ft)

GEOSERVICES INC,CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' ™""™'

FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NQ. P1289-01

APPENDIX ADESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

fiR302626

c

APPENDIX1. OVERVIEW

The finite element method is a generally applicable technique forcalculating stresses and movements in a structure and can be applied toa number of different types of practical problems and models. Problemscan be solved involving a wide variety of boundary and loading conditions,and effective procedures have been developed for approximating the stress-strain behavior of a wide variety of materials.

To understand the behavior of a complex structure in one operationis a complicated endeavor. Subdividing a structural system intoindividual components or "elements/ whose behavior is readily understoodand then rebuilding the original structure from such components to studyits behavior facilitates the understanding of the behavior of the entirestructure. The finite element method involves modeling a structure usingsmall interconnected elements called finite elements. A structure may bemodeled with elements in two and three dimensions. Figure 1 is an exampleof a simple two-dimensional mesh of 4 elements and 9 nodes that may beused to grossly model a block of soil.

Every interconnected element is linked, directly or. indirectly, toevery other element through common or shared interfaces, including nodes,boundary lines and surfaces to form a mesh. A mesh has the samedimensions as the structure to be modeled and is composed of thecollection of finite elements. Figure 2 shows an earth dam and the two-dimensional mesh formulated to model deflections in the structure. Thestress/strain properties for the material making up each element of thestructure is specified. The stresses and deformations of each element ismathematically calculated based on the properties of the elements, therelationships between elements, and the imposed boundary conditions.Integration of the deformations of each element gives the overalldeformation of the entire structure.

N890726

AR3Q2627

To apply the finite element method of analysis, a problem is brokendown into a series of steps or increments. A step-by-step procedure usedfor the analysis allows appropriate changes in properties and geometry tobe made from one step to the next. Changes in the soil properties andchanges in the size of the finite element mesh to simulate excavation,fill or compaction placement are possible.

The finite element method has two general approaches for analysis.The force method assumes unknown internal forces and the results of theanalysis are the internal forces. The displacement or stiffness methodis used for determining unknown displacements at the nodes in a mesh.The stiffness method is most desirable for computational purposes becauseits formulation is simpler for most structural analysis problems. Inaddition the majority of finite element programs available haveincorporated the displacement formulation for solving structural problems.The governing equations in the solution are expressed in terms of nodaldisplacements using the equations of equilibrium and an applicable lawrelating forces to displacements.

2. STEPS IN THE METHOD

1) The system to be modeled must be divided into elements, eachconnected to an adjacent element by nodes. Host two-dimensionalproblems include 100 to 400jslements and 100 to 400 nodal points.For each of these elements, the stiffness values are calculated.

Stiffness is the force corresponding to a unit displacement at oneof the nodal points on the element, while all other nodes remainfixed, as shown in Figure 3. Stiffness is calculated element byelement, and if varying from element to element, the problembecomes no more complicated. The stiffness is calculated in eachordinate direction modeled encompassing all degrees of freedom.For example, in a two-dimensional analysis where the elementshave no bending strength (e.g. soil, truss structure, ...), thestiffness is calculated in the x and y directions, and in a three-dimensional analysis with no bending, the stiffness is calculatedin the x, y and z directions. A stiffness matrix of coefficients

N890726

AR302628

is formulated for each element and then combined with all theelements in the mesh. The resulting "global stiffness" of anentire mesh for a structure is a matrix of coefficients with asize of dN x dN, where N is the number of nodes in a mesh and dis the number of degrees of freedom of the analysis (i.e., for atwo-dimensional problem where bending is not considered thedegrees of freedom, d, is 2. However, a two-dimensional problemwith bending has 3 degrees of freedom, one in each ordinatedirection and one in bending).

2) A set of simultaneous equations is formulated which relates thedisplacements at all of the nodal points in the system to theforces at each nodal point. The coefficients in this set ofequations are the matrix of stiffness coefficients for the entirestructure, which are equal to the sum of the stiffness values forthe individual elements. The problem is formulated in matrix formas follows:

(P) - CK]{U)

where (P) - nodal force vector;[K] « global stiffness matrix; and{U} - nodal displacement vector.

Any boundary conditions are imposed during this step in theanalysis. Load or displacement boundary conditions can bespecified at every node.

3) The equations are solved for the unknown displacements at eachnodal point that is free to move. For a two dimensional mesh with100 to 400 free nodes 200 to 800 simultaneous equations must besolved, necessitating the use of a computer.

4) Following the calculation of displacements, the average strain andstresses in each element can be determined. When a non-linearproblem is solved in a series of steps or load increments, severaliterations or solution cycles may be needed for each step toensure compatibility between stresses and strains. After each

N890726

AR302629

iteration, the stiffness matrix is modified based on the stressesand strains calculated during that iteration, and a new solutioncycle is initiated. This process is repeated until compatibilitybetween stresses and strains satisfies a specified tolerancecriterion. The displacements and stresses at the end of each stepare calculated by adding the increments during the step to thevalues at the beginning of the step.

3. TYPES OF ELEMENTS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSES

a) The basic two-dimensional elements are loaded by forces in theirown plane (plane strain or plane stress conditions). They can betriangular or quadrilateral elements.

b) Primary line elements consist of bar and beam elements with across-sectional area but are usually represented by line segments.These elements are used to model trusses and frame structures.

4. ADVANTAGES

1) A designer can predict stress, vibration and strain prior toconstruction,

2) Irregularly shaped bodies can be easily modeled,

3) General load conditions can be handled without difficulty.

4) Dynamic effects can be included.

5) A body can be composed of several different materials because eachelement is evaluated individually.

6} Nonlinear behavior with large deformations and nonlinear materials canbe handled.

7) The size of the elements can be varied.

8) The finite element model can be altered relatively easily.

N890726

flR302630

REFERENCES

Dunctn, J.M., "Practical Uses of the Finite Element Method in GeotechnicalEngineering," University of California, Berkeley, 1972.

Zienkiewlcz, O.C., "The Finite Element Method," 3rd edition, McGraw-hill,1977.

Login, P.L. *A First Course in the Finite Element Method", PWS Publishers,Boston, 1986.

, N890726

AR30263

7

1

4

3

8

2

5

4

9

6

1 2 3KEY

7 NODE NUMBER2 ELEMENT NUMBER

FIGURE 1: Example of Simple Mash

AR302632

ROAD

FIGURE 2a: Earth Dam with a Core Sensitive to Movement

*R302633

TRAFFIC LOADS

FIGURE 2b: . ... „,„„. ,w, ,..,,,'- **--- •- I Due to Traffic Loads

AR30263U

rtftjff} /TffffTf * m K U

U - NODAL DISPLACEMENTK* STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTP - FORCE

FIGURE 3: Calculation of the Stiffnessat One Node of an Element

ftR302635

APPENDIX B

SSCOMP USER MANUAL(SELECT PORTIONS)

SR3Q2636

APPENDIX Bl ANALYSIS PROCEDURES EMPLOYEDTYPE OF SOLUTION INCREMENTSSOIL BEHAVIOR MODELS

AR302637

SSCOMP: A Finite Element Analysts Program for Evaluationof Soil-Structure Interaction and COMPaction Effects

l-O Introduction ^ _, , . ....... - «.- -_. - - - ' :

The program SSCOMP is a general, plane strain, soil-structure inter-

action program for static analyses of geotechnical problems including

consideration of compaction-induced stresses and deformations- The program

SSCOMP consists of a main program (SSCOMP) and twenty-two subroutines

(INPUTNP, BAR, BEAM, CALBAN, FSCOMP, LAYOUT, ELAW, FORMST, DERIVE, CALBLK,

FVECT, ISQUAD, ADDSTF, SYMBAN, ISRSLT, PCOMPR, QLINKS, QRSLT, INITZ,

ZSTIFF, ZTMOO, ZRSLT). The original soil analysis technique was coded by

Y. Ozawa (Program ISBILD, 1973) using the nonlinear finite element analysis

procedures developed by Kulhawy, Duncan and Seed (1969), and the soil-

structure, interaction capability was coded by J. Dickens (Program SSTIP,

1973). Some new features, including interface elements and a new non-

linear stress-dependent^,roodgl_..for bulk moduli and stress-strain behavior of

soil developed by Duncan et al. (1980), were incorporated in the program

SSTIPN (1979) by Kai S. Wong. The organization of SSCOMP follows the

general programming concepts and solution technlcques of th^ program SAP

developed by Wilson (1970),

The modifications undertaken and new features added to create the

program SSCOMP are directed primarily towards providing a capacity for

analysis of compaction-induced stresses and deflections. Significant new

features include: a) a new hysteretlc model for stresses resulting from

multiple loading/unloading cycles which controls the geostatlc and com-

paction-induced lateral stresses at all stages (as well as forces exerted

at soil/structure interface nodal points), b) a new type of solution

increment for evaluation of the effects of compaction at any stage during

flR302638

construction, and c) a new procedure for evaluation of Young's modulus for

soil elements during unloading and reloading.

2.0 Analysis Procedures Employed in the Program

This program calculates stresses, strains and displacements in soil

elements, and internal forces and displacements in structural elements, by

means of analyses which simulate the actual sequence of construction opera-

tions In a. number of steps. The nonlinear and stress-dependent stress-

strain properties of the soils are approximated by varying the values of

modulus and Polsson's ratio in accordance with the calculated stresses,

using a modified form of the hyperbolic model proposed by Duncan et al.

(1980). The structural materials are assumed to behave linearly.

An increment of an analysis may consist of a) placement of a layer of

fill, b) compaction of a layer of fill, c) placement of a structure, or d)

application of loads to a completed structure and/or a partially or wholly

completed soil mass. Each increment is analyzed twice, the first time

using soil modulus and Poisson's ratio values based on the stress condi-

tions in each soil element at the beginning of the increment, and the

second time based on the average stresses during the increment. This two-

iteration solution procedure allows modelling of non-linear stress and

stress-history dependent soil element and soil-structure interface element

properties. Soil and interface element stiffnesses and force-displacement

relationships are re-calculated for each iteration of every increment of

analysis. The (linear) structural element stiffnesses and force-displace-

ment relationships are calculated only once- The results of the second

iteration of each increment are retained, and the changes in stress and

strain in soil and interface elements, the changes in force and moment in

V bar and beam elements, and the changes in nodal point displacements during»

each increment are added to the values at the beginning of the crfpe -fl ? 6 3 9

2

3.0 Types of Solution Increments ,.,,.__, .._.,..--

3.1 Soil Placement Increment:

A soil placement increment involves addition of new soil elements and

soil-structure Interface elements. Placement of a layer of fill is simulated

by applying nodal forces to_ represent the weight of the added layer- The

soil layer being placed is assigned very small modulus values to simulate

the fact that a newly added layer of fill has very low stiffness. Each

soil element and interface^element in the newly placed layer is assigned

stresses consistent with the overburden pressure at Its center and the

slope of the overlying surface. Each nodal point at the top of the newly

placed layer Is assigned zero displacement unless it Is a nodal point at

which a structural element ts attached, i.e. the positions of these nodal

points immediately after placement are taken as the reference positions for

measuring movements due to subsequent loading. The strains in the newly

placed soil elements are set equal to zero also, thus taking the condition

Immediately after placement as the reference state for strains.

It is possible with the program to add more than one layer of soil

elements at a time to the fill. However, for accurate stresses and

displacements, it is best to add only one layer at a time. For most cases

reasonably accurate results can be achieved using eight or more layers of

soil elements in the mesh, and adding one layer at a time to the fill.

The surfaces of fill layers need not be level. The surface of each

layer is defined by the positions of up Co ten nodal points specified by

the user. As shown in Figure 1, the surface of the fill is assumed level- rf •

to the left fa the first point and to the right of the last point. Between

these points the surface is assumed-Co consist of straight line segments.

The position of the fill surface thus defined is used in calculating the

initial stresses assigned to the soil elements, immediately after they are

placed, as shown In Figure 1. AR302DH-0

3 , - - •-•

3.0 Types of Solution Increments . . . . . . , -—- -

3.1 Soil Placement Increment:

A soil placement increment involves addition of new soil elements and

soil-structure interface elements. Placement of a layer of fill is simulated

by applying nodal forces to represent the weight of the added layer. The

soil layer being placed is assigned very small modulus values to simulate

the fact that a newly added layer of fill has very low stiffness. Each

soil element and interface element In the newly placed layer Is assigned

stresses consistent with che overburden pressure at its center and the

slope of the overlying surface. Each nodal point at the top of the newly

placed layer is assigned zero displacement unless It is a nodal point at

which a structural element Is attached, I.e. the positions of these nodal

points immediately after placement are taken as the reference positions for

measuring movements due to subsequent loading. The strains in the newly

placed soil elements are set equal to zero also, thus taking the condition

immediately after placement as the reference state for strains.

It is possible with the program to add more than one layer of soil

elements at a time to the fill. However, for accurate stresses and

displacements, it is best to add only one layer at a time- For most cases

reasonably accurate results can be achieved using eight or more layers of

soil elements in the mesh, and adding one layer at a time to the fill.

The surfaces of fill layers need not be level. The surface of each

layer is defined by the positions of up to ten nodal points specified by

the user. As shown in Figure 1, the surface of the fill is assumed level

to the left £0 Che first point and to the right of the last point. Between

these points the surface is assumed to consist of straight line segments.

The position of the fill surface thus defined is used in calculating the

initial stresses assigned to the soil elements. Immediately after they are

placed, as shown in Figure 1.

•\

o: Point Defining Position of Fill Surface

Examples of Fill Surface Configuration

Assigned Initial Stress

Element Center0.5 <Th sin.<

in which

« * unit weight/*< - Poisson's Ratio

Figure 1: METHOD OF ASSIGNING INITIAL STRESSES

The program is capable of handling placement of fill and structures on

rtgtd or compressible foundations. If a compressible foundation is hori-

zontal, Che initial stresses in Che foundaCion soil elements can be

generated by the computer program. The value of 0y i" this case Is set

equal Co the overburden pressure ac the center of each soil element in the

foundaCion, and the value of ax is equal Co KgCy. The value of TXV is set

equal Co zero.

Preexisting soil elements In any configuration may be included within

or faeneaCh che fill or the structure. The Inltal stresses in these elements

must be input by the user. The stresses may be generated by other computer

analyses or by hand calculations. The strains In the preexisting soil

elements and the displacements of the preexisting nodal points can be sec

equal to zero by the computer program, or nonzero values can be read In fay

the user, at Che user's option.

Structural elements (bars and beams) and interface elements may also

be included in the preexisting portion. Nonzero initial forces and moments

in these structural elements may be read In by che user, or they may be sec

equal Co zero by the compucer program, at the user's option.

3.2 Soil Compaction Incremenc:

A soil compaction increment models the effects of compacting soil at

any stage during construction. The effeccs of multiple passes of a moving

surficlal compaction plane of finlCe laCeral dimensions operating at the

"current*" ground surface at any given stage during an analysts are modelled

by a single solution increment* Material properties related to compaction

effects for such an increment should be "as compacted" properties (soil

properties corresponding to a compacted condition).

Compaction loading is controlled by a bi-linear, mulct-cycle,

hysterettc loading/unloading model as descried In Section 4.2. Initial

compaction-induced residual stresses (prior Co the occurrence of nodal

displacments and resulting stress redistribuCions) are calculated using Che

hysteretlc model, and are based on peak virgin, compaction-induced lateral

stresses (lateral stresses at any point induced by the most critical

positioning of the surflcial compaction plant, and assuming the soil was

previously uncompleted). Peak virgin, compaction-induced lateral stresses

(itfx,vc,p) can either be input directly for any given soil element, or can

be generated by the program based on profiles of Ac' _,_ _ vs. depth whichA t Vl-f H

may be assigned at various X-locatlons. The hysterettc model calculates

the inital residual lateral stress for each soil element based on Aa' „- -,A., v c, 11

the existing stress state of the element, and the previous stress history

of the element.

Increased lateral soil stresses due to compaction can exert Increased

forces at nodal points occurring at soil/structure interfaces. In addlClon

Co generating increased soil element stresses, therefore, a compaction

Increment also models nodal forces resulting from compaction. Initial

compaction-induced nodal point forces (prior to Che occurrence of nodal

displacements and resulting stress redistribuCions) can either be inpuc

directly or can be generated by the program based on the corapacclon-tnduced

stress changes of the adjacent soil element as calculated by the bi-linear

model. •

After initial compaction-induced nodal forces and compaction-Induced

element stresses have been assigned, a two-iteration finite element

solution sequence, as described previously for soil placement increments,

Is used to calculate nodal deflections and resulting stress redistribu-

tions. As nulttple passes of a surficial compaction plant continually re-

AR3026UU

Introduce the stresses relaxed by deflections near the fill surface, the

program allows the use of negligible soil moduli during compaction

Increments for near surface elements, resulting In no relaxation of

compaction-induced stresses and nodal forces near the existing ground

surface. This permits the use of a single solution increment to model

multiple compaction passes at a given fill elevation.

Once compaction-induced stresses have been introduced Into a soil

element, all subsequenc stress changes resulting during any type of

Increment (soil placement, compaction, loading, or structural placement)

will be modified by Che hysCeretic model which behaves as an overriding

"filter**. When placement of additional overburden or the occurrence of

nodal deflections cause an Increase In geosCaCic stresses, resulting In an

associated decrease In compaction-Induced stressses (see Section A.2.3),

the load veccor for Che second iteration of any Cype of solution Increment

is also modified Co model Che associated relaxation of compaction-induced

nodal point forces at soil/structure interfaces. Direct relaxation of

compaction-induced stresses due to the occurrence of nodal deflections

which cause a decrease in both geostatic and compaction-induced stresses,

results In direct calculation of correct nodal poinC forces during any Cype

of Increment and requires no furcher raodlficaCion of the load vector.

3.3 Load Increment:

At any stage during construction, a load increment consisting simply

of application of forces and/or momencs Co specified nodal points may

occur. Nodal poinC forces itust be specified directly, either as nodal

point forces or as distributed loads along one face of an element

(resulting in loading of two nodal potncs). Nodal poinC momencs may be

specified directly for nodes actached to any_ Cype of elemenc during a load

increment AR3026^5

3.4 Placement of Structure

If che strucCure is not "pre-existing" (in place prior to the first

cbnstnictfion, compaction, or load increment), then placemenC of the struc-

cure constlcuces a soluclon increment- The enCire sCrucCure must be placed

in a single increment, and placemenC of the structural elements can be

accompanied by nodal forces in much the same fashion as placement of new

soil elements during a soil placement increment.

4,0 Soil Behavior Models

The program SSCOMP incorporaces Cwo soil behavior models. Soil

element material propercies during any solution increraenc are calculated

based on a modified version of the non-linear (hyperbolic) strength,

stress-strain and bulk modulus model proposed by Duncan, eC al. (1980).

Soil element material properties at any increment during an analysis are

based on che current stress scate and the previous stress history of each

element.

The second soil behavior model used in SSCOMP is a hysteretic loading/

unloading model for .stresses resulting from soil compaction. This model:

a) controls residual compaction-induced soil stresses and nodal point

forces assigned during compaction increments (prior to the occurrance of

nodal deflections), and b) acts as an overriding "filter" controlling and

modifying generaCion and dissipation of the compaction-induced fraction of

soil stresses and nodal forces ac any location during all sCages of incre-

mental analyses.

4.1 General Hyperbolic Model for Stress-SCrain and Bulk Moduli:

The non-linear, stress- and stressHLevel-dependent soil behavior model

employed In che Program SSCOMP is a modified version of che hyperbolic

AR3026U6

scress-straln, strength, and bulk modulus model proposed by Duncaa, Byrrte,

Wong and Mabry (1980), The original model has been modified In order to:

a) provide Improved modelling of bulk moduli at low stress levels and low

confining stresses, b) provide improved modelling of soil behavior during

unloading/reloading, and c) eliminate a source of potential computational

Instability for some cypes of incremental loading paths. These modifications

significantly improve che performance of Che new hyperbolic model with

respect Co analysis of the types of soil behavior associated wich placement

and compaction of soil, but they do not affecC the model parameters. As a

result, the hyperbolic soil behavior model parameters and recommended

meChods for their determination remain unchanged (see: Duncan, et al. ,

1980).

The original model assumes that stress-strain curves for soils can be

approximated as hyperbolas shown in Figure 2(a). The inscancaneous slope

of the hyperbolic stress-strain curve is Che tangent modulus Et, which is a -

funcclon of confining scress ( 3') and stress level (SL), and which can be

expressed as

EC - a - Rf • so ic • pa •

where SL m Scress Level, defined as Che ratio

SL - (ffj - ff3)/(ff1 - <J3)f (4-2)

where (GJ - 3) is the deviatoric stress required to cause

failure at a given confining stress (o 1). (°i ~ CT3^f is

decermined based on Mohr-Coulomb (cf,<frr) failure criteria,

and che model allows variation of V as a funcCion of 03'.

K,n - Model parameCers (constants) relating the initial modulus

(S f see Figure 2(a)) to the confining scress 03* as

Hyperbolic Representacion:

(GI- *yEi (cri - cr3)f

- R - S L - - - P ) n

(a) Hyperbolic Representacion of Stress-StrainCurve for Primary Loading.

(b) Linear Unloading-Reloading Stress-Strain Relationship

Figure 2: HYPERBOLIC MODEL OF STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR

RR3026U8JO

Ei - K Pa (

R£ * A model parameter (constanc) Cyptcally between 0.6 to 0.9 for

most soils.

Pg - Atmospheric pressure, introduced into the model In order Co

make K and n dimensionless numbers.

The cangent modulus modelled in this manner increases with Increasing

confining stress (03f) and decreases wich increasing stress level (SL).

This tangent modulus is used to model all siCuaCions corresponding Co

primary loading, where primary loading is deftned as all loading occurring

at a scress level equal to or higher than all previous scress levels.

When the stress level Is less than the previous maximum stress level,

Che original (1980) model assumes Che soil Co be no longer in a state of

primary loading, but racher In an unloadtng-reloading staCe. Unloading is

modelled as linear and elastic as shown tn Figure 2(b). The unloadlng-

reloading modulus is a function only of 03* as

Eur * r * Pa * a3'/pa n (4-4)

where 1C.- is Cyptcally 1.2 to 3 ttmes greater than K (che modulus parameter

determlntng Ej).

The original model assumes that Che bulk modulus of the soil is inde-

pendent of stress level, and can be expressed as a funccion of 03* as

B - Kg • Pa ' <c3VPa)m (4-5)

where Kw and m are dimensionless parameters (constants).

The origntal (1980) model has been modified such that the bulk modulus

Is now constrained Co be greater Chan or equal to a limiting lower bound

value determined as

-"• -Jjit** -I-•***=

B , - (fimin

Assuming KQ * l-sin+'» this has the .effect of constraining Poisson's racio

Co be greater than or equal Co vm, approximately as

u , > 'T 'A——— C4-7)--= - min 1 •*" KO

because Poisson's racio Cv) and the bulk modulus (B) are related as

38 - E.6B (4-8)

This constraint Is similar to the lower bound constraint on Poisson's

ratio employed in the earlier, similar, model proposed by Wong and Duncan

(1974), and Is introduced in order to prevent a tendency for the model to

underestimate lateral stresses in soil elements wich small confining

stresses and low stress levels.

The most significant modification of the 1980 model Involves the

unloading-reloading modulus.

The original (1980) model differentiates between primary loading and

unloading-reloading scress paths on che basis of stress level (Eq. 4-2).

Primary loading moduli are employed for stress increments in which che

stress level is greater than or equal Co Che previous maximum stress level,

as shown in Figure 3(a). In this figure, point A represencs a scress

condition corresponding to Che maximum stress level achieved up to a given

stage of a multi-increment analysis.

The new (modified) model differentiates between primary loading and

unloading-reloading stress paths on the basis of stress state (SS) defined

as . - - • ------—- -SS - SL 4 (ff,'/P ) (4-9)J a (

RR3026SC3

12

CONFINING PRESSURE -

a) Old Stress Level Criteria

yib-ozUJQSIxiU.U.

tuce:i-

CONFINING PRESSURE -

fa) New Stress State Criteria

Figure 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN STRESS LEVEL AND STRESS STATECRITERIA FOR ASSIGNMENT OF UNLOADING-RELOADING MODULI

AR30265!M

where SL - Stress Level » (a1 - tJ3)/( i ~ a3)f» and

Pa "atmospheric pressure, introduced in order to allow taking the

fourth power radical of a dimensionless number-

This stress state criteria accounts for the effects of both prior stress

level history and also confining stress, in agre.ement with test results of

Tatsuoka and Ishihara (1974) and Larabrechts and Leonards (1978). Figure

3(b) illustrates the new stress state criteria for differentiation between

primary loading and unloading-reloading for the same conditions as shown in

Figure 3(a).

In addition to the adoption of stress state criteria, an addlctonal

modification has been implemented in order to eliminate the sudden

discontinuity at the point of transition from a primary loading modulus

(E£) to the unloading-reloading modulus (Eur) as shown In Figure 4(a).

This sharp transition can lead Co computational instability for certain

types of Incremental analyses.

The new (modified) model eliminates this discontinuity, and the

associated computational instability, by modelling a linear transition

between primary loading moduli and full unloading-reloading moduli as shown

In Figure 4(b)« The new model establishes soil moduli as follows:

1. The transition from unloading-reloading to primary loading Is

determined based on stress state. Knowing Che stress state

(SSfflax pagc) at which primary loading begins, the stress level

(SLcr£C) at which primary loading begins for a given confining

stress (t?3f) can be calculated as

SL - , max Past (4-10)cric V^vTp—j a

2. When SL > SLCrlt* che Primarv loading modulus (Efc) as in Eq. 4-1

is used.

14 'AR302652

Soil Modulus(E)

Unloadlng-Reloading Modulus(E )

\\\

rimary LoadingModulus(E)

\ Stress Level (SL)V_SL . ^max past

(a) Previous Model for Unloading-Reloading Moduli

Soil Modulus (E)Unloading-Reloading Modulus (E )

\\\

Primary LoadingModulus(E )

V - CT X -, Stress Level (SL)^S criC * crit (For a given CT3')

(b) Proposed Model for Unloading-Reloading ModuliFigure 4: MODELLING UNLOADINC-RELOADING MODULI WITHOUT

INTRODUCING COMPUTATIONAL INSTABILITY

AR302653

When SL < 3/4 <ST ti_ "- .Sl- the unloading-reloading modulu9 (E r) as in

*• When 3/4 SL , < QT ^ CTeric SL < SLcrit the modulus used is derived by

ur and E alinear interpolation between E atur at cr C lfcas shown in Figure 4(fa).

«R30265li

APPENDIX B2 MESH LAYOUT ANDCOMPUTER PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

ftR302655

5.4 Mesh Layout:

Several examples of types of meshes which can be used wich the program

are shown in Figure 15. In each of these meshes the basic numbering scheme

Is Che same. The nodal points should be numbered from left Co right across

each level. Soil elements are numbered In the same way, with che element

numbers increasing from left Co righc in each layer. As shown in Figure

16, che preexisctng part of Che mesh may be »ay—be- beneath the fill,

adjacent Co the fill, or entirely within the final geometry of the completed

fill, and ic may consist of more than one part. The structural elements may

be numbered in any desired order. The sotl elements, bar elements, and

beam elements are each numbered separately, from one through the number of

elements of that type.

Movements at each nodal point can be constrained wich respect to X or

Y displacement, or ZZ rotation. No equation is asstgned Co a constrained

nodal degree of freedom, minimizing the number of equations to be solved.

Two or more nodal points can be caused to undergo identical displacements

In che X and/or Y directions using a special boundary code which results In

assigning the same equation numbers Co these nodal points. Two nodes

cannot be caused to undergo Identical rotations, and non-zero nodal

displacements and rotations cannot be imposed.

6.0 Computer Program Organization

The main program (SSCOMP) reads and prints che concrol data and

monitors all operations by calling the subroutines in the specified

order. Figure 17 shows a flow diagram for SSCOMP,

45 /1R302656

Nodal points on left and right are "fixed" with respectto X-displacement and ZZ-rotatlon (Inport Code 1).

Beam ElementNumbers

s/srBottom nodal points are fixed with respect to X andY-displacements and ZZ-rotation.

Soil Element Numbers

Note: For accurate displacements and stresses, meshes should haveeighc or more layers of elements around areas of interest.These examples contain too fev elements and nodal points foraccurate results.

Figure 15: EXAMPLES OF MESH NUMBERING

AR30265746

Pre-exiscing Part

Pre-existing Pare

Pre-existing Part

Pre-existing Part

Figure 16: EXAMPLES OF PRE-EXISTING PARTS

AR302658

•

——— ( ZSTIFF

f— i &™ If 4

IMTZ I-F— < \TK;T>O >—^

——— < KUHO>0 >No N —— ——— '

,Yes

| OLINKS r

-

NU r -= i,

•• •— 1 LLAK

PIT i* ————————— j CALBANr

PCOHPK

FORMST

CALBLK

LX;-Lx-*-f) Yes<JTCOMP^T>——'" • | FSCPW

No

FVF.CT

«/

| I SOL' AD

• •

Figure 17: SSCOMP FLOW DIAGRAM"AR3Q2659

48

a) Subroutine READNP reads and prints nodal point data, establishes——— —-a relationship between each nodal point degree of freedom and the

corresponding equation number, and sets the equation number to

zero for constrained boundary conditions.b) Subrouclne BAR reads and prints bar element data and calculates

Che Internal force-displacement matrix, the element stiffnessmatrix, and If required Che element gravity load vector. Thesematrices and vectors are stored on tapes 12, 13, and 14respectively.

c) Subroutine BEAM reads and prints beam element data and calculatesthe internal force-displacement matrix, the element stiffnessmatrix, and, if required, che gravity load vector. These matrtcesand vector are stored on tapes 12, 13 and 14 respectively.

d) Subroutine CALBAN calculates che band width of a group ofelements.

e) Subroutine LAYOUT reads and prints the sotl input data andcomputes and prints the initial stresses and the initial modulusand Poisson's ratio values for Che soil elements.

f) Subroutine ELAW calculates modulus values for the soil elements inaccordance with the existing stress state and previous stresshistory of each soil element*

g) Subroutine FORMST calls subroutine DERIVE to establish straln-dlsplacemenc matrices for five poinCs within each soil element andstores the matrtces on Cape 7.

h) Subroutine DERIVE forms the strain-displacement matrices for Chesoil elements,

t) Subroutine CALBLK determines the number of elements and nodalpoints for the entire mesh, the number of elements and nodalpoints In Che preexisting part and the newly added layers, thenumber of equations, the number of equations in each block, andthe number of blocks for each construction increment, compactionincrement, or load increment.

.j,k) Subroutine FVECT calculates nodal point forces due to weights ofadded elements, reads concentrated load data and/or boundarypressure daCa, incorporates the compaction-induced nodal poinCforces generaCed by_ FSCOHP and ISRSLT, prints nodal point forces,sets up the force vector and stores it on tape 10. SubroutineFVECT2 modifies the load vector to account for computed changes incompaction-induced nodal forces.

1) Subroutine ISQUAD formulates the constitutive equations, forms theelement stiffness matrix for each element, and writes it on tape2. This subroutine also formulates the strain-displacement matrixfor each element and writes it on tape !!•

m) In subroutine AODSTF, che tocal stiffness matrix for eachIncrement is formed two blocks at a time by making a pass throughthe element stiffness matrices and adding the appropriater\ y r r ncoefficients, and these blocks are stored in tape 4/*nOU£OOU

49

n) Subrouclne SYMBAN solves the simultaneous equations representingthe stiffness matrix and the load veccor for nodal pointdisplacements using the Gausstan elimination technique.

o) Subroutine ISRSLT calculates stress tncremencs and averagestresses and evaluates the moduli for each soil element after theftrst iteration. For the second tteracion subroutine ISRSLTcalculates che tncremental and cumulative displacements for eachnodal point, tncremental and cumulative stresses and strains foreach soil element, modulus values for each soil element to be usedtn che nexc IncremenC, and internal forces In structural elemencs.ISRSLT incorporaces che bi-linear hysterettc loading/unloading modeland uses this model to modify the lateral stresses of all soilelements tn conformance with the bl-ltnear model at all stagesduring analysis. ISRSLT also generates nodal point forces duringthe first Iteration of a solution Increment (assolcated withrelaxation of compaction—induced soil stresses) which are thenused tn FVECT to modify Che load vecCor for the second Iteration.

p) Subroutine QLINKS reads in nodal link Input data, calculates bandwidth, forms element stiffnesses and stores chem on tape 17*

q) Subroucine QRSLT computes tncremenCal and Cotal nodal link forcesat Che end of the second Iteration.

r) Subroucine INITZ computes initial interface element stresses andmoduli, computes band width and calls ZSTIFF co form interfaceelement stiffnesses.

s) Subroucine ZSTIFF forms tncerface elemenC stiffnesses and scoresChera on tape 16.

C) Subroutine ZTMOD determines Che state of stress and evaluates newInterface element moduli.

u) Subroutine ZRSLT computes incremental and total Interface elementstresses from nodal displacement Increases, calls ZTMOD for statedetermination, evaluates new moduli and calls ZSTIFF to form newInterface eleraenc sCiffnesses.

v) Subroutine PCOMPR reads all Input data associated with compactionincrements. A major portion of this input data which relates tospecific compaction increments is stored on Cape 21.

w) Subroutine FSCOMP controls and establishes Che Inltal conditionsfor compaction incremencs. FSCOMP establishes peak and residualcompaction-Induced stresses (prior to the occurrence of nodaldeflections), assigns compaction-induced nodal point forces, anddetermines which soil elements will be modelled with "softened"moduli during a given compaction increment. Peak and residualcompaction-Induced lateral stresses, as well as resulting nodalpoint forces, are based on the hysteric loading/unloading modeldescribed in Section 4.2*

AR3026650

REFERENCES

1. Clough, C. W. (I960), "Finite Element Analyses of Soil-StructureInteraction in U-Frame Docks," Thesis in partial fulfillment of therequirements for Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley.

2. Duncan, J. M., Bryne, P., Wong, K. S. and Mabrv, P. (1980). "Strength,Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses ofStresses and Movements in Soil Masses," Geotechnical Engineering ResearchReport No. UCB/GT/8G-01, Uniyerstty of California, Berkeley.

3. Kulhawy, F. H., Duncan, J. M. and Seed, H. B. (1960). "Finite ElementAnalysis of Stresses and Movements in Embankments During Construction,'*Report No. TE 69-4, Office of Research Services, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

4. Lambrechts, J. R. and Leonards, G. A. (1978). "Effects of Scress Hlscoryon Deforraacion of Sand," JGED, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT11, pp. 1371-1387.

5. Ozawa, Y. and Duncan, J.M. (1973). "ISBILD: A Compucer Program forAnalysis of Scatlc Scresses and Movements in Embankments," GeotechnicalEngineering Research Report No. TE-73-4, Department of Civil Engineering,University of California, Berkeley.

6. Seed, R. B. and Duncan, J. M. (1983)* "Soil-Structure InteractionEffects of Compaction-Induced Stresses and Deflections", GeotechanlcalEngineering Research ReporC NO. UCB/GT/83-06, Universtcy of California,Berkeley. -

7. "SSTIPN User's Manual," Departmenc of Civil Engineering, GeotechnicalEngineering, UnlverslCy of California, Berkeley, January, 1979.

8. Tatsuoka, F. and Ishthara, K. (1974). "Yielding of Sand in TriaxialCompression," Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanicsand FoundaCion Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 63-76.

*9, Wilson, E. L. (1970). "SAP: A General Structural Analysis Program,"

Structural Engineering Laboratory Report No. UCSKSM 70-20, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, September.

flR3026625'

APPENDIX C

DESCRIPTION OF THE HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN MODEL(FROM DUNCAN ET AL. [1980])

AR302663

INTRODUCTION

The finite element method provides a powerful technique for analysis

of stresses and movements in earth masses, and it has already been applied

to a number of practical problems including embankment dams, open excava-

tions, braced excavations, and a variety of soil-structure interaction,

problems.

If the results of soil deformation analyses are to be realistic and

meaningful, it is important that the stress-strain characteristics of the

soil be represented in the analyses in a reasonable way. This is diffi-

cult because the stress-strain characteristics of soils are extremely

complex, and the behavior of soil is nonlinear, inelastic, and highly

dependent on the magnitudes of the stresses in the soil.

The hyperbolic stress-strain relationships described in this report

were, developed in an attempt to provide a simple framework encompassing* •

the most important characteristics of soil stress-strain behavior, using

the data available from conventional laboratory tests. These relation-

ships have been used in finite element analyses of a number of different

types of static soil mechanics problems £11, 12, 13,22, 23,24, 31* 32, 35*

40) , and values of the hyperbolic parameters have now been determined for

about .150 different soils.

The purposes of this report are to describe the hyperbolic relation-

ships, to outline the procedures for evaluating the hyperbolic parameters,

and to present parameter values determined from drained and undrained

tests on a number of soils.

In a previous report, Wong and Duncan (45) outlined procedures for

determination of stress-strain and volume change parameters for use.in

AR30266U

nonlinear finite element analyses of stresses and movements in earth

masses. In that report, the parameters employed to represent nonlinear

and stress-dependent stress-strain and volume change behavior were:

CD Tangent values of Young's modulus (EJ which vary with

confining pressure and the percentage of strength

mobilized, and

(2) Tangent values of Foisson's ratio {v ) which vary with

confining pressure and the percentage of strength

' mobilized.

Subsequent studies have shown that the volume change behavior of

most soils can be modelled with equal accuracy by assuming that the bulk

modulus of the soil varies with confining pressure, and is independent

of the percentage of strength mobilized. At high stress levels this

assumption provides a more reasonable means of representing the mechan-

ical properties of soils.

This report outlines procedures which may be used to determine

the required Young's modulus and bulk modulus parameters from convention-

al laboratory test data. Specifically, the report is concerned with the

use of the following parameters to represent the nonlinear and stress-

dependent stress-strain and volume change behavior of soils:

CD Tangent values of Young's modulus (E ) which vary with

confining pressure and the percentage of strength mobilized

t«xactly the same as in the previous report by Wong and

, Duncan) ,- and

C2) Values of buUc modulus (B) which vary with confining

4R302665

pressure and which are independent of the percentage of

strength mobilized.

SR302666

HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS

The hyperbolic stress-strain relationships (22) were developed for

use In nonlinear incremental analyses of soil deformations. In each

increment of such analyses the stress-strain behavior of the soil is

treated as being linear and the relationship between stress and strain

is assumed to be governed by the generalized Hooke's Law of elastic

deformations, which may be expressed as follows for conditions of plane

strain:

Aa

Aa

(3B + E)- (3B - E) 0 -]

(3B - E) (3B + E) 0

X

y 93 - E

xy

in which

Aa « normal stress increment-%

Aa » normal stress incrementyAT * shear stress incrementxyAe » normal strain incrementxAe » normal strain incrementyAY * shear strain incrementxyE » Young's modulus

Q - bulk modulus

x

As CD

BR302667

By varying the values of Young's modulus and bulk modulus appro-

priately as the stresses vary within the soil, it is possible using

the simple equation (1) to model three important characteristics of

the stress-strain behavior of soils, namely, nonlinearity, stress- .

dependency, and inelasticity. The procedures used to account for these

characteristics are described in the following paragraphs.

Stress-Strain Curves Represented by Hyperbolas. Kondner

and his co-workers (29, 30), have shown that the stress-strain curves

for a number of soils could be approximated reasonably accurate by hyper-

bolas like the one shown in Fig. 1. This hyperbola can be represented by

an equation of the form:

while other types of curves could also be used, these hyperbolas

have two characteristics which make their use convenient:

(D The parameters which appear in the hyperbolic equation have

physical significance. E. is the initial tangent modulus

or initial slope of the stress-strain curve and (a,-a_) ,t

is the asymptotic value of stress difference, which is

related closely to the strength of the soil. The value of

(cr.-o*.) lt is always greater than the compressive strength

of the soils, as discussed subsequently.

(2) The values of E. and (CN-a.) ... for a given stress-strainAR302668

(o; -cr3) =

REAL€

TRANSFORMED

(0-0-) EL

FIG.I HYPERBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF A STRESS-STRAIN CURVE

AR302669

curve can be determined easily. If the hyperbolic equation

is transformed as shown in the lower part of Pig. 1, it

represents a linear relationship between e/Ccr-a.) and e.

Thus, to determine the best-fit hyperbola for the stress-

strain curve, values of e/(a.-a.) are, calculated from the •

test data and are plotted against e. The best-fit straight

line on this transformed plot corresponds to the best-fit

hyperbola on the stress-strain 'plot.

When data from actual tests are plotted on the transformed plot,

the points frequently are found to deviate from the ideal linear relation

ship. The data for stiff soils, such as dense sands, usually plot on a

mild curve which is concave upward, whereas the data for soft soils, such

as loose sands, usually plot on a mild curve which is concave downward.

Experience with several hundred stress-strain curves for well over a

hundred different soils indicates that a good match is usually achieved

by selecting the straight line so that ,it passes through the points where

70% and 95% of the strength are mobilized (22,32). Thus, in practice,

only two points for each stress-strain curve (the 70% point and the 95%

point) are plotted on the transformed diagram.

Stress Dependent StressfStrain Behavior Represented by varying E.

-a .) . with Confining Pressure- For all soils except fully satu-

rated soils tested under unconsolidated-tindrained conditions, an increase

in confining pressure will result in a steeper stress-strain curve and a

higher strength, and the values of E, and f").,!*. therefore increase

with increasing confining pressure. This stress-dependency is taken into

RR302670

account by using empirical equations to represent the variations of E,

and (ffi"°3JUTt with confining pressure.

The variation of E± with a. is represented by an equation of the

following form, which was suggested by Janbu (28) :

a nEi "KPa (;r) f3'^ a \ P, /

The variation of Ej_ with 0"3 corresponding to this equation is shown 'in

Fig. 2. The parameter K in equation (3) is the modulus number, and n is

the modulus exponent. Both are dimensionless numbers, p is atmosphericapressure, introduced into the equation to make conversion from one system

of units to another more convenient. The values of K and n are the same

for any system of units, and the units of E. are the same as the units of

p » To change from one system of units to another it is only necessarya"to introduce the appropriate value of p in equation (3) .a

The variation of *"0 with a. is accounted for as shown in

Fig. 3 by relating Cc.-<r.) ,. to the compressive strength or stress dif-

ference at failure, i Vf an< then using the Mohr-Coulomb strength

equation to relate (a -a ) to cr . The values of (a_-<7-) . and (a ,-CT-JX J £ J J. J UJ.u 4. J

are related by:

C4)in which Rf is the failure ratio. Because (ffi-tT )* i* always smaller

than (ffi-O",) lt* the value of Rf is always smaller than unity, and varies •

from 0.5 to 0.9 for most soils.

The variation of (a.-a.) f ' with cr_ is represented by the familar Mohr-

Coulomb strength relationship, which can be expressed as follows: BR30267

FIG. 2 VARIATION OF INITIAL TANGENT MODULUSWITH CONFINING PRESSURE

RR302672

10

toi!*b

CJ

II

-e-5 ^ ccco

8

Ib"

U.

X

X

o2b gCOu_O

O1—E

JO

ou.

&R302673

11

2c cos<A +• 2a' <s)

in which c and $ are the cohesion intercept and the friction angle, as

shown in Fig. 3.

Relationship Between E and the Stresses, The instantaneous slope

of the stress-strain curve is the tangent modulus, Et- By differentia-

ting equation (2) with respect to e and substituting the expressions of

equations (3) , C4) , and (5) into the resulting expression for Efc, the

following equation can be derived:

EtThis equation-can be used to calculate the appropriate value of tangent

modulus for any stress conditions (a. and C^*™^)) if the values of the

parameters K, n, c, $, and R_ are known.

Inelastic Behavior Represented By Use of Different Modulus Values

for Loading and Unloading. If a triaxial specimen is unloaded at some

stage during a test, the stress-strain curve followed during unloading

is steeper than the curve followed during primary loading, as shown in

Fig. 4. If the specimen is subsequently reloaded, the stress-strain

curve followed is also steeper than the curve for primary loading and is

quite similar in slope to the unloading curve. Thus the soil behavior is

inelastic, because the strains occurring during primary loading are only

partially recoverable on unloading. On subsequent reloading there is

always some hysteresis, but it is usually reasonably accurate- to

RR30267U

12

FIG. 4 UNLOADING-RELOADING MODULUS

flR30Z675

13

approximate the behavior during unloading-reloading stress changes as

linear and elastic, in effect ignoring any hysteresis effects.

In the hyperbolic stress-strain relationships, the same value of

unloading-reloading modulus, E , is used for both unloading and reload-

ing. The value of Eur is related to the confining pressure by an equation

of the same form as equation (3):

n

E * K p (—— \ . /7)ur ur *a Pa/ w'

In this equation K is the unloading-reloading modulus number. The

value of K is always larger than the value of K (for primary loading).

K may be 20% greater than K for stiff soils such as dense sands. For

soft soils, like loose sands, K may be three times as large .as K.. The

value of the exponent n is always very similar for primary loading and

unloading, and in the hyperbolic relationships it is assumed to be the

same, : :

Nonlinear Volume Change Accounted for By Using Constant Bulk

Modulus. Many soils exhibit nonlinear and stress-dependent volume change

characteristics, as illustrated by the volume change curves shown in

Fig. 5. The assumption that the bulk modulus of the soil is independent

of stress level (O"," ) and that it varies with confining pressure pro-

vides reasonable approximations to the shapes of these volume change

curves. Furthermore, the assumption that the bulk modulus is independent

of stress level provides perhaps the best representation of soil behavior

which is possible within the framework of.incremental elasticity, because

it correctly reflects the fact that the response of the soil to changes

flR302676

14

I

b"

(JC

01*«-.v—

"QV*t«0)

a>

Axial Strain, £a>

CO

c"o

o i -s^ —— Intermediate

High CT,

Fig. 5 NONLINEAR AND STRESS-DEPENDENT STRESS-STRAINAND VOLUME CHANGE CURVES

RR302&77

15

in scan stress is virtually unaffected by the value of (a.-C-J.^ J

According to the theory of elasticity, the value of bulk modulus

If defined by

Aa * ACT, + Ac".B =

in vhich B is the bulk modulus; A0 , Aa , and ACT are the changes in theJL 4. J

values of the principal stresses, and Ac is the corresponding change in

volumetric strain. For a conventional triaxial test, in which the

deviator stress f -i" ) increases while the confining pressure is held

constant, equation (9) may be expressed

(cr. -cr.)n a —i——L- (9)

The value of bulk modulus for a conventional triaxial compression

test may be calculated using the value of {Q-\~QJ corresponding to any

point on the stress-strain curve, such as point A in Fig. 5, and the

corresponding point on the volume change curve (A1).

Because real soils undergo some volume change as a result of

changes in shear stress in addition to those caused by changes in normal

stress, the values of B calculated using equation £9) vary somewhat

depending on which points on the stress-strain and volume change curves

are employed in the calculation. Study of the volume change behavior

of a wide variety of soils has led to the following criteria for select-

ing which points to use in calculating the value of B:

(1) If the volume change curve does not reach a horizontal

tangent prior to the stage at which 70% of the strength isAR302678

16

mobilized, use the points on the stress-strain and volume

change curves corresponding to a stress level of 70%.

(2) If the volume change curve does reach a horizontal tangent

prior to the stage at which 70% of the strength is mobilized,

use the point on the volume change curve where it becomes

horizontal, and the corresponding point on 'the stress-strain

curve.

Variation of B with Confining pressure, when values of B are cal-

culated for tests on the same soil at various confining pressures ,. the

bulk modulus will usually be found to increase with increasing confining

pressure. As shown in Fig. 6, the variation of B with confining pres-

sure can be approximated by an equation of the form

in which K. is the bulk modulus number and m is the bulk modulus exponent,

both of which are dimensionless. p is atmospheric pressure, expressed

in the same units as a and B. For most soils the values of m vary

between 0.0 and 1,0. In the case of undrained tests on clays compacted

dry of optimum, values of m less than zero have been determined, which

corresponds to a decrease in the value of B as the confining pressure

increases. This unusual behavior is believed to result from a breakdown

in the structural arrangement of the soil particles due to the application

of larger pressures.

C " .

AR302679

17

o.ilogf^i] 'U 100

\Pa J

«* . «.«,„ c, OULK «DULUS W,TH CWRNING pB£ssu

AR302680

IS

Restrictions on the Range of values of B. As the value of B

ipproaches E /3, the corresponding value of v (tangent Poisson's ratio)t tipproaches zero, because V =l/2-E /6B. Therefore, in, finite element

computer programs, the values of v may be restricted to positive values

by using B * E./3 in cases where equation £10) indicates lower values.t »Similarly, by using S * 17 E where equation (10) indicates higher values,

the value of v may be restricted to values less than or equal to 0.49.

Summary of Hyperbolic Parameters. In all, nine parameters are

employed in the hyperbolic stress-strain relationships described in this

report. These parameters and their functions within the relationships,

are listed in Table 1.

The hyperbolic relationships outlined previously have proven quite

.useful for a wide variety of practical problems for the following reasons:

El) The parameter values can be determined from the results of

conventional triaxial compression tests.

(2) The same relationships can be used for effective stress

analyses (using data from drained tests) and total stress

analyses (using data from unconsolidated-undrained tests).

(3) Values of the parameters have been calculated for many dif-

ferent types of soi'ls and this information can be used to

estimate reasonable values of the parameters in cases where

the available data are insufficient to define the parameters

for all of the soils involved in a particular problem. The

information is also quite useful for assessing the reliability

of parameter "values derived from laboratory test results;

AR30268!

19

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE HYPERBOLIC PARAMETERS

Parameter

K, KUJ,

n

c

$,A*

*f

*b

m

Name

Modulus number

Modulus exponent

Cohesion intercept

Friction angle parameters

Failure ratio

Bulk modulus number

Bulk modulus exponent

Function

Relate E^ and E to ff-

Relate (tf-j-c ) f to a.

Relates (<Wult to (oyay f

value of B/Pa at O, » Paa J a

Change in S/Pa for ten-foldincrease in a.

AR302682

20

The simple hyperbolic relationships have some significant limitations

which should be understood any anyone who uses them:

(1) Being based on the generalized Hooke's Law (equation 1) the

relationships are most suitable for analysis of stresses and

movements prior to failure. The relationships are capable of

predicting accurately nonlinear relationships between loads

and movements, and it is possible to continue the analyses up

to the stage where there is local failure in some elements.

• However, when a stage is reached where the behavior of the*

soil mass is controlled to a large extent by the properties

assigned to elements which have already failed, the results

will no longer be reliable, and they may be unrealistic in

terms of the behavior of real soils at and after failure.

These relationships are not useful, therefore, for analyses

extending up to the stage of instability of a soil mass. They

are useful for predicting movements in stable earth masses.

(2) The hyperbolic relationships do not include volume changes due

to changes in shear stress, or "shear dilatancy." They may

therefore b« limited in the accuracy with which they can be

used to predict deformations in dilatant soils, such as dense

sands under low confining pressures.

(3) The parameters are not fundamental soil properties, but only

values of empirical coefficients which represent the behavior

of the soil under a limited range of conditions. The values

of the parameters depend on the density of the soil, its water

AR302683

21

content, the range of pressures used in testing, and the •

drainage conditions, in order that the parameters will be

representative of the behavior of the soil in the field

condition, the laboratory test conditions must correspond to

the field conditions with .regard to these factors.

AR30268U

APPENDIX D

TABLE OF SOIL PROPERTIESAND HYPERBOLIC PARAMETERS(FROM DUNCAN ET AL. E19803)

AR302685

T7O

°- *• u£ = i0. tU .2

J= °

5 I?<u

0

w°

<uOS

c

.*

<*u1M°>

^s*<J-S

oS1••s•*tf

>• >

RCStand.

AASHTO

UnlfUd

Classification

, rt «M IM Md d d d

<n i/* m .0r* IM'I» in-4 f4

r»- r*- ix i*.. • » .o o o o

«f «f <* *>dodo

0 O O 0O w> O O<0 «r n «

O O O O

<j* irt «

r4 o n

O «« O W»if v r r^ 4 p-t »4* • . *O 0 O O

m O in OO O O» 0»* *4

Ot O>U (A

?%*SO VI

o o o od o* d d

0 0 O Om in in v*tr m IN *4

^ r» r** * * .o o o o

w» at in mr* iv r* <M• * • *O O O O

0 O O 0O in o irt10 9 f5 *4

O O O O

CD (O «

uj «r <M o

m o »* O* **• M f*«« 4 4 4* • • .o o o o

O w^ O w»O <T* O1 CO

•KVI

v» u in in* • * 4

O O O O

o o in oO O f* «n M

r» P- f* r*• * • •O 0 O O

(0 10 to <£• * • «o o o o

So o oO ut O .

^f N »H rt

m » n rw* • • •O 0 O O

o o o o

r* *n m r*ndl. JM. .k

v» 'o t/* oft f"» fM fM

• * • to o o o

o w> o f*O 0* 0* <D

OVIXwi

M fM (** M

d d d d

0 O O Ov -i oo tn•-i M

r» r* r* r«-d d d o"

in m in mv ^f »* v. . • •O 0 0 O

So g op* <S u)^ *4

9 Pt C4 4• • • •O O O O

'o o o o

o o o on n n r>

V O ft O.ft f» |», fM

* * * *o o o o

O v* O tno ch <n to*•• i

d

AR302686

APPENDIX E

HYPERBOLIC INTERFACE PARAMETERS(FROM ADIB £1988])

&R302687

155

<vQ.O•-tV)

JJ- .c00 U• 4 **--••"i **4

4)PC

un

Relnforceme

Type

uo.>.H*-f1-1Otrt

iJc<y5 *c(O•ssUl

> >^ r-<. . . - > >S * T * »^ — *J-. r-t r-»in »A •• ••• • EC Ko o •-* -i

o O »n tnes c c«i c

0 0m tnM C^

& 1*is 01 to tc « «>P ^ O H •-» O• - o -* o

"O W *-* C* *O 41 4-y- fM— < -W X <u *^ T3 X Cl-i O 4)>O >-• O Of<uOQO C 4J 0 U ^ C *^> uo t>o oaQ o t>o OQOu «H luO e 41 -H «> s eo w o -5 o to oC-<

>» >, >\ >»a> 41 ai 01>»4J X*J P^« >**Jt a _ t njf~i «•-< < 8 « - 4r ^ i - l « - < l ^ ^ - * ' H » - 4 - Hu t n u t o u w o c r t

,-t (N " f*> •**

tot->an>Jc<fl

•S

1)fiOfuuofejcV4Vp•ocnW

»ufth*CJ•m

01.001

AR302688

L.

173

C

u>K"W

J3"c *o•« c•e **SIU P4

rt-» nJ^e c* rtJ3H -4[±J

SOn j^J C•-< 1«J» rx

»o— i*~cft3

mj

•-*«S

-»-j••4Ifl»

?n—j*-*rtn

C4—4*-4rta«-<

— J•~4nA

</

t IS /jj /f /r>b *w iw/2?/ u/ */ a,1 0' £1 **

oo oO *O

Oo oO m

*no- CMO m

« °o »oo m

o°. ^0 •«

oo •O -<

Co <-lo -^

o o0 «omod o

»niuy-

,-» u~* ** * «W C Jf0. V O *« u» "w

3 U .*J * *U y •»3 V I*

tf IL. r-< •O U hQ.£— * ws ei n.<rt ! * « « • »* P-I OJC — 1 tS SS O O J J

W *4 M

60O*-4

O• X<n

*H

W«O-, HO• Xen *F-t

w«ort HoX« f-<

wort « .o

X<ni-4

"o*-4

o x«-« -

"o*-loXm•H

"ot-lm> x^ **-4

«°rtO«-«o Km~4

wo«-(

0 X*** 1-1

U. 1 %O » *•* •».-I U «u tffjj ^ lu vy TJ *» w *-**-. w o CU O * U Oiu IM u *-<a. « wd o c rt<p4 1-1 e — • *

•H U Hc u o.**0 O « 10 T>•J «M *» N*/ •< * »-*M * W ' t *J3 f-* U *• B d•o « y * u «• n c S o -*fig « <rt w * 0

CC3OtoCO

o•OOoin*4

O*

Oooi-4

O4'oOtnCO

O•mCOP-I

o*o

rCO

o*oo

u->

O4

OOOin»-t

o•

O\o«o#""»

1 w•J Wlu V»J t-iw tio oO **at«0 rte w*- qU -3O.TJtn %«* jjnj c« VJ= «Hw-u

o*om

»Mm

O•

oom<S|*M

O*

OOm1-1

OOmPJin

o*

tnfx(M

O*

m«»**

o*o»r»

»*•

OC?otnc»lPJ

OOOS .O*

Vou«<*ewua,nW)c«-l•W•«o•-•c

o»

f-4

O**O

o•

t-4

O*

rH

O*•-*

•«r•o

o*

»-*

W•o

o**»«

e*urtweDD.R^(d*fsr-«

•S

OS*

O

CO*o

Ift.o

ffk•o

**»CO*o

«oIo

«T**o

»*o

«T»*o

5*pioMlAJ2«ua*-*

' .*IM

•<JCK«•-«*-»<«>

=5te>p&tuO»«4W>»f-*««C• *uc-WfiW«-<WVu•Je_ltuWJC1JISft•WWVI3V)•B.-JUUV0.ouD*WucWBWf-< •W «nu« KU Vtfl R(*j.tfu nv *«JJ.OdlsMM*.

10•m

*.-j•S'J-t

•i r» *3 n oA H 3 0 21

OJ

tu >— • 1-— OJ•*-» 1_ (/>x o o<DU- CD4-> OO <U

<-> *J Q.•a v.j-J o 01c: a. cO QJ — •U 1_ 4->

t/>C in tu

CL

•« C, *a -at-O (0

O)-

C OJ-0a; cu

oo —

O.C, 00— t— CO+-1 C CT»o ~^

*»- c cO) rt3<y e i-

JD

£_ 0*0

4-> <1) Q; OJC O> <U—• C OO

«O UJ<u a. -C3J= C O CH- «-* 3C

*->O

0CLSTO

flR302B90

APPENDIX C

MODERN HOME WELL SURVEY

AR30269I

11/22/89 833-6158Modern Home Well Survey

Survey conducted during July and November, 1988

Parcel HO *Property Owner UNKNOWNAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NO WELL, PROPERTY IS FIELD

Parcel 11AProperty Owner EELDER, ROBERT & ELAINEAddress RD 9 BOX 113, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-1468

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1988 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 200 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 180 Rated gpm 5Location NE CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 27Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE & THELMAAddress RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2583

Use of Well DWL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled 1985? Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 300 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm 60Location '500 FT SSW OF HOUSE, IN FIELD

Parcel 27Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE £ THELMAAddress RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2583

Use of Well DWL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled 1983 Driller JACKSONDepth (ft) 100 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 25 Rated gpm 20Location 80 FT OFF SW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 31Property Owner DIETZ, T. w.Address RD 9, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PROPERTY IS ALL FIELDS

V Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't kn•Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR302692



Parcel 35 . .. .Property Owner UNKNOWNAddress RD 9 BO.X 131, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NA " """ - - - - - - - -Year Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation HOUSE ON PROPERTY, WELL NOT LOCATED

Parcel 35AProperty Owner CHRIST UNITED METHODISTAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone . _ 717-755-4470

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 1 EACH BEHIND CHURCH AND HOUSE

Parcel 37Property Owner CHRIST UNITED METHODIST ?Address" .-:•-".: -RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-4470

Use of Well NONEYear.Drilled NA Driller - NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NO WELL ON PROPERTY

Parcel 38Property Owner DODSON, DONALDAddress : RD 9 BOX 258, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone -NA

Use of-Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) 80 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SE CORNER OF HOUSE. ALSO UNUSED DUG WELL.

Parcel 56AProperty Owner TARLTON, CHARLES & DORISAddress ' RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-3973

Use of Well Iff-> Irrigation WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) 130 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm 6Location WEST SIDE OF HOUSE

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didnft know)•Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR302693



Parcel S6Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE & THEZJ4AAddress - RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2583

Use of Well NONE NOW WashingYear Drilled 1971" Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 60 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation N SIDE OF TRAILER IN BULL LOT

Parcel 56CProperty Owner SMITH, ELIZABETHAddress RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9452 _ _ _ _ . .

Use of Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled SOyr Driller DUGDepth (ft) >24 Diam. (in) 48Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 15 FT OFF NW CORNER OF HOUSE -

Parcel 56BProperty Owner SCHLAG, C. ROYAddress RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9047

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1967 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 84 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation IN BASEMENT, BENEATH PORCH ON S SIDE HSE

Parcel S7Property Owner XESSLER, MAURICE C., JR.Address RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8941

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled >20yr Driller NADepth (ft) 48 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT OFF SW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 58Property Owner BUPP, ARTHUR A.Address RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NA

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't kn'Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR3026914

11/22/89 -— . , — — — — _ - - - _ . „ _ . - _ _ . . . . 883-6158Modern Home Well Survey


Parcel 59Property Owner SMITH, MARY JANEAddress RD" 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (i ) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation RESIDENTS OUT OF TOWN DURING SURVEY

%

Parcel 60Property Owner HEINTZELMAN, RONALD B.Address "RD 9, RIDDLE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA, Rated gpm NALocation WELL NOT LOCATED, NO ONE HOME

Parcel 61 ~- - — ........_- . . . . . . . .Property Owner SMELTZER, JOHN H.Address RD 9 BOX 100, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-6464

Use of Well IWL-> : - Irrigation Washing LivestockYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) >35 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 35 Rated gpm NALocation UNDER BACK DOORSTEP, EAST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 62BProperty Owner IMMANUEL BIBLE CHAPELAddress 2080 N. SHERMAN, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-2413

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PROPERTY IS WOODED, APPARENTLY NO WELL

Parcel 62Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-7057

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled lOOyr Driller DUGDepth (ft) >8 Diam. (in) 48"Casing Length NA : Rated gpm NALocation IN PUMPHOUSE, WEST OF HOUSE (R. Penwell)

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't know)•Parcel' refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

ftR302695

11/22/89 . 383-6158Modern Home well Survey


Parcel €3Property Owner MARKEY, AUSTINAddress RD 9 BOX 102, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9837

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1920" Driller NADepth (ft) 40" Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH FLOOR OF PANTRY, NW SIDE OF HSE

Parcel 64 (SE)Property Owner UNKNOWNAddress RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Parcel 64Property Owner PILACHOWSKI, KIMAddress RD 9 BOX 534, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8184

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1987 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 300 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 73 Rated gpm 2Location 50 FT OFF NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 65, 22AProperty Owner GURRERI, C. THOMASAddress RD 9 BOX 105, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-3683

Use of Well DIW(2hses>-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 30yr? Driller KOHLER?Depth (ft) 280 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 100 Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT BEHIND HOUSE ON PARCEL 65

Parcel 66Property Owner GURRERI, C. THOMASAddress RD 9 BOX 105, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-3183

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation UNUSED, PROP. VACANT, BUT STILL EXISTS

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't kn•Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR302696

11/22/89 ........ . - 883-6158Modern Home Well Survey


Parcel 67,62CProperty Owner AXE, RICHARDAddress - - RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8236

Use of Well DffL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled 1956 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 85 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 65 Rated gpm 103Location EAST SIDE DOOR STEP

Parcel 67 (east)Property Owner SHELLEY, BRIANAddress RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-3044

Use of Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1982" Driller KOHLER?Depth (ft) 140" Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 25 FT FROM SW CORNER OF TRAILER

Parcel 97,97AProperty Owner MlfERS, PAUL & JEANNETTEAddress RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-UNLISTED

Use of Well W-> Washing iYear Drilled 30yr? Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PERHAPS IN THE BASEMENT OF HOUSE

Parcel 98,98PProperty Owner RICHARDS, EDSONAddress RD 9 BOX 461, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9782

Use of Well DIWL-> Drinking Irrigation Washing LivestockYear Drilled NA Driller CAMPBELLDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 30 FT N OF WITMER RD, 15 FT E OF DRIVEWY

Parcel 98QProperty Owner DAY, CARL L.Address RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2205

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1978" Driller YOUNGDepth (ft) 240 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm 3Location 30 FT FROM NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't know)•Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

RR302697



Parcel SSMProperty Owner NOEL, ROBERTAddress RD 9 BOX 456, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-4634

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1979 Driller REIDERDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 50 FT OFF NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 98K,98NProperty Owner MYERS, PAUL & JEANNETTEAddress RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-UNLISTED

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller /-NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SOMEWHERE NEAR BARN, NOT CURRENTLY USED

ParcelProperty Owner MCGUIRE, DONNAAddress RD 9, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-1689

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1972 Driller KOHLER .. -Depth (ft) 143 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 25 Rated gpm 43Location SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 9SE (vestProperty Owner DAY, CARL L.Address RD 9, RTE 124 & MEADOW, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2540

Use of Well IW-> Irrigation WashingYear Drilled lOOyr Driller DUGDepth (ft) >15 Diam. (in) 60Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE (ALLISONS WILL BUY)

Parcel 9iLProperty Owner DAY, CARL L.Address RD 9, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2205

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 2 WELLS ARE PLANNED TO SERVE 2 WAREHSES


AR302698

11/22/89 883-6158Modern Home Well survey


Parcel 98DProperty Owner MYERS, SCOTTAddress : -" RD 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-5182

Use of Well -lW-> Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1984" Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 180 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 60 Rated gpm 5Location 20 FT OFF SW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 98E (eastProperty Owner DAY, CARL L.Address RD 9, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2205

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1986 Driller _ WILLWERTDepth (ft) 110 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm 6Location SE CORNER OF BLDG ON SALVAGE PROPERTY

Parcel 98RProperty Owner DAY, CARL L.Address ..__ RD 9, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2205

Use of Well W-> WashingYear Drilled 1982 Driller WILLWERTDepth (ft) 120 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm 4.5Location SE CORNER OF BLDG (GOHN & BARTO RENTING)

Parcel 98AProperty Owner SARVER, KENT & CARLAAddress T?D 9, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-4144

Use of Well - DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA _ JDiam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WASHHOUSE,9 TRLRS(public, past half mile

Parcel 98HProperty Owner SCHEITHAUER, HARRYAddress RD 9, WITHER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation DID NOT RESPOND

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't know)'Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

11/22/89 . 883-6158Modern Home Well Survey


ParcelProperty Owner SPRENKLEAddress RD 9 BOX 457, WITMER RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 25 FT FROM NW CORNER OF HOUSE. NOT HOME

Parcel 99AProperty Owner GOHN, KATHLEEN A.Address RD 9 BOX 436, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1974" Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 200" Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 80 FT OFF SW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 99Property Owner GOHN, EDNA LOUISEAddress RD 9, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled >35yr Driller NADepth (ft) <100 Diam. (in) 6?Casing Length NA Rated gpm 10Location SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE, UNDER PORCH

Parcel 99BProperty Owner PAULE, ROBERTAddress RD 9 BOX 434A, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-7117

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1985 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 300 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 40 Rated gpm 2Location 50 FT WEST OF NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 10 OGProperty Owner LEISER, STEPHEN & CHERYLAddress RD 9 BOX 439B, FAKE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-4423

Use of Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1986 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 120 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 40 Rated gpm 20Location 5 FT WEST OF NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Notds: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't•Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR302700

•kno~

11/22/89 . . . . . . . . . . . . ___-....._._..._ 883-6158Modern Home Well Survey


Parcel 100EProperty Owner HOKE, STEVEN £ GALEAddress RD 9 BOX 439A, FAKE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9302

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1987 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 140 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 60 Rated gpm 20Location 80 FT OFF SW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 100CProperty Owner GRIM, SCOTT E. £ JEANINEAddress RD 9 BOX 439, FAKE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-7541 -

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 40yr? --Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 15 FT E OF HOUSE, CINDER BLOCKLINED PIT

Parcel 100Property Owner FORBES, RICHARD £ DEBRAAddress RD 9 BOX 439C, FAKE RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-3982

Use of Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1987 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 180 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length 60 Rated gpm 10Location 50 FT OFF NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 102Property Owner MILLER, DONALD E. £ SUSANAddress RD 9, BOX 4.38, MEADOW RD, York, PA, 17402Phone -. 717-755-2502

Use of Well DWL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled lOOyr Driller- DUGDepth (ft) 25 Diam. (in) 48Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 5 FT OFF NE CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 152Property Owner RIEDER, EURNAAddress RD 9 BOX 260, off PROSPEC, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-2584

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation UNDER SW CORNER OF HOUSE


AR3Q27CH


Survey conducted during July and November, 1988-

Parcel 153Property Owner HENISE, LINDAAddress RD 9 BOX 259, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-1767

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation ? DON'T USE DUE TO HIGH IRON AND ZINC

Parcel 153Property Owner HENISE, LINDAAddress RD 9 BOX 259, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-1767

Use of Well DIWL-> Drinking Irrigation Washing LivestockYear Drilled NA Driller SpringDepth (ft) 0 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SPRING LOCATED ON SW SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 154Property Owner GIZY, THOMAS <SP?)Address RD 9 BOX 261, off PROSPEC, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-3116 _ ... .. . ._

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled >100y Driller DUG?Depth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 155Property Owner SHERBINE, DORISAddress RD 9 BOX 262, off PROSPEC, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8143

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1920" Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 155A, 156Property Owner FRY, RHEAAddress RD 9, off PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-3224

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 46yrs Driller NADepth (ft) 100 Diam, (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE ON PARCEL 156


AR302702

11/22/89 - -- ...-- - .— ^-.-.-——- - . - . . . . - - - 883-6158Modern Home Well Survey


Parcel 155A,155BProperty Owner SAAB, JOHNAddress RD 9, off PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-6559

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled lOOyr Driller NADepth (ft) 60" Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WEST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 157,161Property Owner WEBBER, C. E.Address RD 9 BOX 112, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone —-- -717-UNLISTED

Use of'Well- DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1935 Driller NADepth (ft) 150 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation EAST SIDE OF GUEST HOUSE, MOSTLY VACANT

Parcel 157,161Property Owner WEBBER, C. E.Address RD 9 BOX 112, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-UNLISTED

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1935 Driller NADepth (ft) 150 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BASEMENT OF MAIN HOUSE AT TOP OF HILL

Parcel 157,161Property Owner WEBBER, C. E.Address RD 9 BOX 112, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-UNLISTED

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1935 Driller NADepth (ft) 40" Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WEST SIDE OF DAUGHTERS HSE, OFF MEADOW R

Parcel 159Property Owner BLUMENTHAL, L.(RT124 AUTOAddress RD 9, E PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-5471

Use of Well IW-> Irrigation WashingYear Drilled NA Driller REIDERDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 25 FT FROM NE CORNER


RR302703

11/22/89 883-6158Modern Home Well survey



Use of Well NONEYear Drilled 1880 Driller DUGDepth (ft) 22 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACATED (R. Helder)


Use of Well NONEYear Drilled 1880 Driller DUGDepth (ft) 22 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACATED (R. Helder)

Parcel 163Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD2 BOWERS BRIDGE RD,MNCH, York, PA, 17402Phone . 717-266-4160

Use of Well XW-> Irrigation WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation CELLAR OF HOUSE, ALSO SERVES TRAILER

Parcel 164Property Owner DAUGHERTY, D.E. £ J.Address .. RD 9, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-6351

Use of Well DWL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled 1962 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 90 Diam. (in) NACasing Length <50 Rated gpm NALocation 8 FT FROM EAST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 165Property Owner DOXZEN, WAYNEAddress RD 9 BOX 119, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-5732

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1857 Driller DUGDepth (ft) 80 Diam. (in) 60Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation SE CORNER OF HOUSE

tNotes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't kn

"Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

AR3027QI*



Parcel 166Property Owner LIBHART, JERRY C.Address RD 9 BOX 121, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-2248

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1952 Driller NADepth (ft) 42 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm 50?Location BASEMENT OF HOUSE. ALSO A DUG WELL

Parcel 167Property Owner EBERLY, G £ MAddress RD 9 BOX 125, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1952" Driller NADepth (ft) 70" Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NW CORNER OF HOUSE

Parcel 168Property Owner _.. XAUFFMAN, THOMAS fi E.Address RD 9 BOX 85, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH PORCH, EAST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 169Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-246-2686

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH PORCH, S SIDE OF HOUSE (VACANT)

Parcel 170Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9 BOX 120, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-0097

Use of Well W-> WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH STOOP, E SIDE OF GARAGE (I.Myers


AR302705



Parcel 171Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9 BOX 120, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-0097

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH STOOP, E SIDE OF GARAGE (I.Myers

Parcel 172Property Owner KLINE, WM. E. £ DOROTHYAddress RD 9 BOX 123, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-3260

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT SOUTH OF HOUSE

Parcel 173Property Owner HINKLE, ROBERT S. fi JUDYAddress RD 9 BOX 126, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 50yr? Driller NADepth (ft) 85 Diam. (in) 4Casing Length NA Rated gpm 8?Location BENEATH PORCH, WEST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 174Property Owner EMENHEISER, DONALDAddress RD 9 BOX 127, RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9335

Use of Well NAYear Drilled 55yrs Driller NADepth (ft) 60 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT BEHIND HOUSE

Parcel 175Property Owner FARMLAND INDUSTRIESAddress RD 9, PROSPECT & RTE 124, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation TURKEY HILL MINIT MART, DIDNT KNOW

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't•Parcel' refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)

knW)

AR302706

11/22/89 - 833-6158Modern Home Well survey


Parcel 176Property Owner XOOBHN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD & 124, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-246-2686

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation PROPERTY HAS BEEN DOZED

Parcel 177Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE fi THELMAAddress RD 9, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT WEST OF HOUSE (Hendrickson's)

Parcel 178AProperty Owner METROPOLITAN EDISONAddress YORKANA SUBSTATION, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-244-0773

Use of Well NO WELL Washing LivestockYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NO WELL

Parcel 178Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE fi THELMAAddress RD 9 BOX 315, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone :7l7-755-8062

Use of Well W-> WashingYear Drilled 1986 Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NE SIDE OF HOUSE (Roxana Heindel)

Parcel 179AProperty Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9, RED FRONT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-246-2686

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller REIDERDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation 20 FT E OF SE CORNER OF HOUSE (Sullivan)


AR302707



Parcel 179BProperty Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9 BOX 314, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9499

Use of Well W-> WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation OFF SW CORNER OF WMI SERVICES OFFICE

Parcel 179Property Owner MODERN TRASH REMOVALAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-246-2686

Use of Well NONEYear Drilled NA Driller CAMPBELLDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation HOUSE IS NOW VACANT, I BELIEVE

Parcel 180Property Owner WINTER, MOSE fi DORRISAddress RD 9, PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8373

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BEHIND HOUSE (?)

Parcel 182Property Owner MARKEL, EDNAAddress RD 9, RTE 124 & PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8341

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1977 Driller NADepth (ft) 95 Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation EAST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 182AProperty Owner KELLER, H* DIETZAddress RD 9, E PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation FIELDS - NO APPARENT WELL


AR302708

11/22/89 883-6158Modern Home well Survey


Parcel 183Property Owner HEINDEL, HORACE fi THELMAAddress RD 9 BOX 268,E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of,Well DIW-> Drinking Irrigation WashingYear Drilled 1986 Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diara. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation S SIDE OF HOUSE (Peggy Leber)

Parcel 184Property Owner HEINDEL, LAWRENCEAddress R.D. 9, Box 271, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-8727

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1954 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 65 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation S SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 185AProperty Owner SCHXJLTZAddress RD 9, E PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NA . <Year Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NO ONE HOME, DIDNT LOCATE WELL

Parcel 186Property Owner HELDER, PALMERAddress RD 9 BOX 274, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone -—--- 717-755-9330

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1955 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 65 Diam. (in) 6Casing Length 60 Rated gpm NALocation EAST SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 187AProperty Owner KELLER, H. DIETZAddress RD 9 BOX 275, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9799

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation E SIDE OF HOUSE (Teresa Beaverson)


AR302709



Parcel 187Property Owner STEIN, STEVENAddress RD 9 BOX 276, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-5915 . . _ _ _ .

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1960 Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH PORCH, SE CORNER OF HOUSE ..

Parcel 188, 1SSAProperty Owner KELLER, H. DIETZAddress RD 9, E PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WOULD NOT GIVE INFORMATION

Parcel 189Property Owner COOLEY, R. M.Address RD 9 BOX 279, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-6232

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) 8Casing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WELL BEHIND HSE,ALSO 5 SPGS(past l/2mile

Parcel 190Property Owner KSLLER, H. DIETZAddress RD 9, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-9132 ...

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation S SIDE OF DUPLEX (past half mile)

Parcel 213Property Owner PAULS, SAM £ MARIEAddress RD 9 BOX 303, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-5036

Usa of Well DWL-> Drinking Washing LivestockYear Drilled 1960" Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) >100 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation WEST SIDE OF HOUSE (past half mile)

Notes: NA - Not Available (No respondent, or respondent didn't kn'Parcel1 refers to Tax parcel number (see Figure 2-6)



Parcel 215,2ISAProperty Owner KELLER, H. DIETZAddress RD 9 BOX 304, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-2975

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NE CORNER OF HOUSE (past half mile)

Parcel 216Property Owner GILBERT, WILLIAM J.Address RD 9, E PROSPECT RD, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-9049

Use of Well NAYear Drilled 1956 Driller KOHLERDepth (ft) 45" Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation BENEATH PORCH ON SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE

Parcel 217Property Owner YOUNG, DEBAddress -RD 9 BOX 306, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-6979

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation UNDER PORCH, NE CORNER OF BEAUTY PARLOR

Parcel 218Property Owner SHIELDS, VERNONAddress RD 9 BOX 307, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-757-1210

Use of Well DW-> . Drinking WashingYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) >100 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NORTH SIDE OF DUPLEX, INSIDE ENCLOSURE

Parcel 219Property Owner HEINDEL, GLADYSAddress RD 9 BOX 309, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-1343

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1953 Driller .... KOHLERDepth (ft) 85 Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation NE CORNER OF HOUSE


RR3027U

L



Parcel 220Property Owner GREENAWALT, s. A.Address RD 9 BOX 310, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone NA

Use of Well NAYear Drilled NA Driller NADepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation_____NE CORNER OF HOUSE, (NO ONE HOME)

Parcel 221Property Owner VAN DE WATER, C. £ J.Address RD 9 BOX 311, E PROSPECT, York, PA, 17402Phone 717-755-4014

Use of Well DW-> Drinking WashingYear Drilled 1842? Driller DUGDepth (ft) NA Diam. (in) NACasing Length NA Rated gpm NALocation OFF SE CORNER OF HOUSE


AR302712

•o•5(DSaxD

RR302713

APPENDIX D

WETLANDS FORM D

RR3027U

4R_WM-T72: 3/M COMMONWEALTH OF *e«NSY1.VANIA_ ____ , DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL HESOUHCES .... .**"*** I.O. Number

August 12' 19S8'tUWEAU OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

EXCLUSIONARY AREA CRITERIA/ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR MUNICIPALWASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

INSTRUCTIONSPermit applicants must subject Itnds proposed for processing or disposal of municipal waste to the stan-dards set forth in the regulations governing same prior to issuance of a waste management permit.

Form D is to be completed and submitted to the Department as a component of a permit application, [f apermit application is submitted tn Phases this form must be submitted with Phase 1. Further, It is recom-mended that potential permit applicants subject proposed facilities to Sect/on One prior to preparation ofany other component of the permit application, ff, in fact, the site meets the exclusionary area criteria im-posed by Section One-Part One, the site can not be permitted by the Department.

Section One is dividec into two parts. Part One contains absolute exclusionary criteria— if anresponse to any question included tn Section One — Part One Is given, the permit will be denied for the pro-posed area. There is no need to complete the rest of the form. Section One — Part Two contains mitigatableexclusionary area criteria— if an affirmative response is given, additional information must be provided. Ifthe Department determines that the additional information does not mitigate the concerns, then the permitapplication win be denied for the proposed area.

If the site is not excluded under Section One, then Section Two should be completed. Section Two allows"Icants to attempt to mitigate certain environmental impacts, but also allows the applicant to provide

jcial and economic justification in the event that impacts cannot be effectively mitigated. The Departme;will determine the effectiveness of mitigation and justification provisions.

*Applicants should answer each question that applies to the type of facility they intend to operate, and pro-vide the required additional information for ail affirmative responses. Attachments may be necessary if addi-tional information is required. The Department may require information in addition to that provided in thisform, if rt deems necessary. In addition, a USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map, indicating theperimeter of the permit area {to approximate scale) and all environmental impact areas (as indicated by thisform) shall be attached.

When locating a permit area with respect to the boundaries of environmental impact areas identified by this•form, applicants should be aware that distances from a facility to a feature or structure (described by thesestandards) shall be measured from the perimeter of proposed the permit area. Permit area is defined as "Thearea of land and water within the boundaries of the permit, which is designated on the permit applicationmaps as approved the Department. The area includes the areas which are or will be affected by the municipalwaste processing or disposal facility/' (reference Section 271.1)

RR302715

FORM D

APPLICABILITY

he Exclusionary Area Criteria apply to the siting of all municipal waste processing and disposal facilitiesequiring permits under the law. However, the regulations provide the following exceptions to the applicabilityof the Environmental Assessment Process (Section Two):

1. Agricultural Utilization of Sewage Sludge Facilities.2. Land Reclamation facilities for Sewage Sludge.3. Permit modification applications that are not considered to be "major" modificationas indicated by the regulations.

For facilities which were subjected to the Environmental Assessment Process prior to April 9, 1988, theDepartment will limit the scope of review to the following:

1. Proposed modifications to the facility2. Changes (in the area covered by the assessment) that have occurred since the lastassessment was conducted.

RR302716

FORM D

SECTION Q EX 10NARY AREA CRITERIA

One;An affirma spc 'Q any of the following inquiries indicates exclusion of the proposed site undelregulations

A. If the f is N -- sipal Waste Landfill, is all or part of the facility located:RegulatoryCitation Yes No

273.202[a){" C ' LU In the 100-year flood plain of any waters of the Commonwealth?Attach floodplain map showing facility location.

273.20C i)(7} Q OS Within 100 feet of a perennial stream? (see note l followingForm D)

273,20t :§) Q IS In an area underlain by limestone or carbonate formations where theformations are greater than five feet in thickness and present at thetopmost geologic unit?

273.201 )) IS Within 10,000 feet, or 3,048 meters, of a runaway that is or will beused by turbine-powered aircraft at a Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) certified airport?

273.202 3) 00 Within 5,000 feet, or 1,024 meters, of a runway that is or will be usedby piston-type aircraft at an FAA certified airport?

273.202U ') £ H3 Within the conical area set forth at 14 CFR Part 77 (relating to objectsaffecting navigable airspace) for runaway flight paths that arebe used by turbine powered or piston-type aircraft?

273.202UM12) 7. 00 Within 25 feet of a coal seam, coal outcrop or coal refuse?

S. If the ty is traction/Demolition Waste Landfill, is all or part of it located:277.202. 1. D In an area underlain by limestone or carbonate formations where the

formations are greater than five feet in thickness and present at thetopmost geologic unit?

277.202 2. D Within 100 feet of a perennial stream?

C. If th-. ty is sfer Facility, Resource Recovery Facility or other Processing Facility, is all orpan cats

273.202 D Within 100 feet of a perennial stream?283.202

FORM D

D. If the facility is a Composting Facility, is It located:Regulatory|itation Yes No

281.2Q2(a)Cn 1, D C! In the 100 year flood plain of any waters of the Commonwealth?Attach fioodplain map showing facility location.

281.202(a)(5) 2. D D Within 100 feet of a perennial stream?

281.202(a){8) 3.D , D In an area where the seasonal high water table or perched water tableis less than 4 feet from the surface.

281.202{aK3) 4. D Q Within 100 feet.of a sinkhole?

281.202(a){73 5; D D Within !4 mile upgradient or within 300 feet downgradient of a privateor public water source,

E. If the facility is an Agricultural Utilization Land Application of Sewage Sludge Facility, is all or part ofit located: .. =. ... .= —... . , , . — . . .275.202(1} 1. D D Within 100 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream?

275.202(4) 2. D D Within 25 feet of bedrock outcrop?

275.202(6) 3. D D Within 100 feet of any sinkhole or area draining into a sinkhole?

75.202(7) 4. D D Within 25 feet of the perimeter of an undrained depression?

WF. If the facility is a Land Disposal of Sewage Sludge, is all or part of it located:

275.202(10} 1. D D - In the 100 year flood plain of any waters of the Commonwealth?Attach fioodplain may showing facility location.

275.202(1} 2. D D Within 100 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream?

275.202(4) 3. D D Within 25 feet of bedrock outcrop?

275.202(6} 4. D D Within 100 feet of any sinkhole or area draining into a sinkhole.

275.202(7) 5. D D Within 25 feet of the perimeter of an undrained depression?

Please Note: If any of the questions in Section One-Part One of this Form (above) have been answeredto the affirmative, THERE IS NO NEED TO COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS FORM. THE PERMIT APPLICA-TION WILL BE DENIED FOR THE PROPOSED AREA.

AR302718

FORM D

Part Two:"^e following criteria are exclusionary to siting the municipal waste facilities identified, unless information,

required, is provided which justifies exemption from the exclusionary area criteria:

A. If the facility is a Municipal Waste Landfill, is all or part of the facility located:RegulatoryCitation Yes No

273.202(aK2) 1. S D In any wetland, or within 300 feet of any wetland? Explain the basisfor this determination. Indicate guidance documents utilized such asthe US EPA Wetlands Identification and Definition Manual, Vol. II (FieldMethodology} or other appropriate documents. Also, include the name,address and qualifications of person making this determination.If "yes" answer the following, and explain each answer.

See Attachment.a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological function, in-cluding food chain production; general habitat; and nesting, spawn-ing, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species?b. Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environmentor as sanctuaries or refuges?c. Would alteration or destruction of the wetlands deterimentally af-fect natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinitydistribution, flushing characteristics, natural water filtration process,current patterns or other environmental characteristics?d. Are the wetlands significant in shielding other areas from waveaction, erosion, or storm damage?e. Do the wetlands serve as valuable storage areas for storm and floiwaters?f. Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas (that is, locationswhere surface and groundwater are directly interconnected?g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter 105?

273.202(a}(3) 2. D E In a coal bearing area underlain by coals that are recoverable ormineable?If "yes,"a. Does the applicant own the underlying coal? If so, attachdocumentation.b. Has the applicant entered an agreement with the owner of coalto provide support? If so, attach documentation.

273.202(a)(4) 3. Q El In a valley, ravine or head of hollow where the operation would resultin the elimination, pollution or destruction of a perennial stream?If "yes," and rechanneling is proposed, has a permit been applied forunder Chapter 105? Explain

AR302719

FORM D

Regulatory"tation Yes No

73.202{a)(6) 4. Q E Within 300 feet measured horizontally from an occupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 300 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers.

273.202(aX6) 5. S D Within 500 feet of the disposal area measured horizontally from an oc-cupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 500 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers. See Attachment,

273.202(a)(8) 6. D E Within 100 feet of a property line?If "yes," answer the following:a. Will actual disposal occur within 100 feet of the property line?b. Has the current owner provided a written consent to the facilitybeing closer than 100 feet? Is so, attach a copy of the written consent.

273.202{a}(13} 7. Cl . IZ.._-Within % mile upgradient or within 300 feet downgradient of a privateor public water source? See Attachment.If "yes," answer the following and attach documentation.a. Have the owner(s) of the public and private water sources in the

. isolation area consented in writing to the location of the proposedfacility?b. Have the owner and each water source owner agreed in writingthat the applicant will construct and maintain at the operator's expensea permanent alternative water supply of like quantity/quality at no ad-dttidnai cost to the water source owner if the existing source becomespolluted or degraded?c. Demonstrate that a replacement water source is technically andeconomically feasible and readily available for every public and privatewater source in the isolation area?

B. tf the facility is a Construction/Demolition Waste Landfill, is all or part of it located:277.202(a)(1} 1, D D In the 100 year flood plain of any waters of the Commonwealth, unless

otherwise approved the Department in writing?

277.202(a)(2) 2. D D In any wetland, or within 300 feet of any wetland? Explain the bastsfor this determination. Indicate guidance documents utilized such asthe US EPA Wetfands Identification and Delineation Manual Vol. H (FieldMethodology) or other appropriate documents. Also, include the name,address and qualifications of person making this determination.If "yes" answer the following, and explain each answer.a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological function, in-cluding food chain production; general habitat; and nesting, spawn-ing, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species?

RR302720

FORK D ___EXCLUSIONARY AREA CRITERIA/ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR MUNICIPALHASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Add to page 6:

Act: 101: 510(a) S. Within 900 feet measured horizontally from any ofthe following:

a) a building which is owned by a school districtor a paracohial school and used forinstructional purposes?

b; a park?

c) a playground?

If the answer to any of the following is "yes,"has the current owner provided a written waiverconsenting to the facility being closer than 900feet? Attach the original of any waivers.

AR30272

FORM D

RegulatoryCitation Yes No

b. Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environmentor as sanctuaries or refuges?c. Would alteration or destruction of the wetlands deterimentatlyaffect natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinitydistribution, flushing characteristics, natural water filtration process,current patterns or other environmental characteristics?d. Are the wetlands significant in shielding other areas from waveaction, erosion, or storm damage?e. Do the wetlands serve as valuable storage areas for storm and floodwaters?f. Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas (that is, locationswhere surface and groundwater are directly interconnected?g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter 105?

.277.202(a)(3J 3-D . D In a coal bearing area underlain by coals that are recoverable ormineable?if "yes,"a. Does the applicant own the underlying coal? If so, attachdocumentation.b. Has the applicant entered an agreement with the owner of coalto provide support? If so, attach documentation.

'77.202(a)(4) 4. D D In a valley, ravine or head of hollow where the operation would resultin the elimination, pollution or destruction of a perennial stream?If "yes," and rechanneling is proposed, has a permit been applied forunder Chapter 105? Explain.

277.202(a)(6) 5. D D Within 300 feet measured horizontally from an occupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 300 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers.

277.202{a)(6) 6. D D Within 500 feet of the disposal area measured horizontally from an oc-cupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 500 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers.

277.202{a}(8) 7. D D Within 100 feet of a property line?If "yss," answer the following:a. Will actual disposal occur within 100 feet of the property line?b. Has the current owner provided a written consent to the facilitybeing closer than 100 feet? If so, attach a copy of the written consent.

AR302722

FORM D


277.202{a)(9) 8. D D Within % mile upgradient or within 300 feet downgradient of a privaor public water source?If "yes," answer the following and attach documentation.a. Have the owner(s) of the public and private water sources in theisolation area consented in writing to the location of the proposedfacility?b. Have the owner and each water source owner agreed in writingthat the applicant will construct and maintain at the operator's expensea permanent alternative water supply of like quantity/quality at no ad-ditional cost to the water source owner if the existing source becomespolluted or degraded?c. Demonstrate that a replacement water source is technically andeconomically feasible and readily available for every public and privatewater source in the isolation area?

277.202(a}(10) 9, D D Within 25 feet of a coal seam, coal outcrop or coal refuse, unless other-wise approved by the Department in writing? If so, provide drawingshowing location(s).

C. If the facility is a Transfer Facility, Resource Recovery Facility, or other Processing Facility, is ail orpart of the facility located:

i79.202(aH1) 1. D D In the 100 year flood plain of any waters of the Commonwealth, unlotherwise approved by the Department in writing? Attach floodpl

283.202(a)(1) map showing facility location.

279.202(aH2) 2. D D In any wetland, or within 300 feet of any wetland? Explain the basisfor this determination. Indicate guidance documents utilized such asthe US EPA Wetlands Identification and Dalineation Manual, Vol. II (FieldMethodology) or other appropriate documents. Also, include the name,address and qualifications of person making this determination.

283.202(a)(2)If "yes" answer the following, and explain each answer.a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological function, in-cluding food chain production; general habitat; and nesting, spawn-ing, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species?b. Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environmentor as sanctuaries or refuges?c. Would alteration or destruction of the wetlands deterimentally af-fect natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinitydistribution, flushing characteristics, natural water filtration process,current patterns or other environmental characteristics.d. Are the wetlands significant in shielding other areas from waveaction, erosion, or storm damage.

AR302723

FORM D

RegulatoryStation Yes No

e. Do the wetlands serve as valuable storage areas for storm and floodwaters?f. Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas that is, locationswhere surface and groundwater are directly interconnected?g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter 105?

279.202(a)(3} 3. D D Within 300 feet measured horizontally from an occupied dwelling?283.202(a)(3)

If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 300 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers. :

279.202(a)(5) 4. D D Within 50 feet of a property line?283.202{a)(5)

If "yes" answer the following:a. Will actual processing occur within 50 feet of the property line?

D. If the facility is a Composting Facility, is all or part of it located:281.202(a}(2) 1. D D In any wetland, or* within 300 feet of any wetland? Explain the basis

for this determination. Indicate guidance documents utilized such asthe US EPA Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Vol. U (HeldMethodology) or other appropriate documents. Also, include the name,address and qualifications of person making this determination.If "yes" answer the following, and explain each answer.a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological function, in-cluding food chain production; general habitat; and nesting, spawn-ing, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species?b. Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environmentor as sanctuaries or refuges?c. Would alteration or destruction of the wetlands deterimentallyaffect natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinitydistribution, flushing characteristics, natural water filtration process,current patterns or other environmental characteristics.d. Are the wetlands significant in shielding other areas from waveaction, erosion, or storm damage.e. Do the wetlands serve as valuable storage areas for storm and floodwaters?f. Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas {that is, locationswhere surface and groundwater are directly interconnected?g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter 105?

AR30272U

Add to page 9:

Act 101s 510{a) 4. Within 900 feet measured horizontally from any ofthe following:

a) a building which is owned by a schooldistrict or a paracohial school and used forinstructional purposes?

b) a park?

c) a playground?

If the answer to any of the following is "yes,"has the current owner provided a written waiverconsenting to the facility being closer than 900feet? Attach the original of any waivers.

279.202(a)(5) 5. Within 50 feet of property line?283.202(a}(5)Act 101: 511(e) If .."yes" answer the following:

a. Will actual processing occur with 50 feet othe property line?

b. If the answer to (a) above is "yes" answerthe following:

(1) Is the proposed facility in conformance withlocal zoning codes?

(2) Will the proposed facility result in anoverall reduction in air emissions?

(3) Have all owners of occupied dwellingsprovided a written consent to the facilitybeing closer than 50 feet? If so, attach acopy of each written consent.

AR302725

FORM D

RegulatoryHtaticn Yes No

?S1.202(aM4) 2. D D Within 300 feet measured horizontally from an occupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 300 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers.

281.202(a)(6) 3. D "" D Within 50 feet of a property line?If "yes," answer the following:a. Will actual processing occur within 50 feet of the property line?

IE. If the facility is a Land Application of Sewage Sludge Facility, is alt or part of it located:275.202(8} 1. D D In any wetland, or within 100 feet of any wetland? Explain the basis

for this determination. Indicate guidance documents utilized such asthe US EPA Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Vol. II (FieldMethodology) or other appropriate documents. Also, include the name,address and qualifications of person making this determination.If "yes" answer the following, and explain each answer.a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological function, in-cluding food chain production; general habitat; and nesting, spawn-ing, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species?b. Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environmentor as sanctuaries or refuges?

- -- cr Would alteration or destruction of the wetlands deterimentallyaffect natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinitydistribution, flushing characteristics, natural water filtration process,current patterns or other environmental characteristics?d. Are the wetlands significant in shielding other areas from waveaction, erosion, or storm damage?e. Do the wetlands serve as valuable storage areas for storm and floodwaters?f. Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas that is, locationswhere surface and groundwater are directly interconnected?g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter 105?

275.202(9) 2. D D "Within 300 feet measured horizontally from an occupied dwelling?If "yes," has the current owner provided a written waiver consentingto the facility being closer than 300 feet? Attach the original of anywaivers.

275.202(5) 3. D D Within 50 feet of a property line, unless otherwise approved by theDepartment in writing.

275.202(2) 4. D D Within 300 feet of a water source, unless otherwise approved by theDepartment in writing.

75.202(3) 5. D D Within 1000 feet upgradient of a surface water source unless other-wise approved by the Department in writing.

RR3Q2726

FORM D

SECTION TWO - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:

'•rt One;An affirmative response to any of the following inquires requires that the applicant completely addressadditional questions set forth for that particular item. (The Department may require additional information.as deemed necessary). Inability or failure to provide such information may result in permit application denial.Inability to adequately mitigate the identified environmental harm may result in permit denial.

If a facility is unable to mitigate the environmental impact identified by any of the items included in this sec-tion, the Department may require completion of Pan Two of this Section in order to evalute the social andeconomic benefits of the proposed facility to determine whether environmental harm outweighs such benefits.NOTE: Do not complete Section Two — Part Two unless directed to do so by the Department.

A. AH municipal wasta processing and disposal facilities required to be permitted must respond to the followingquestions (S«e page 2: Applicability, for exceptions):


271.127(a) 1. D " Q " Is the project located in the corridor of a stream or river designatedas a national or state wild, scenic, recreational, or modified recreationalriver in accordance with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of1968, or the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act?If "yes,"a. Identify the river, the outline of the designated corridor, and thelocation of the project within the corridor.b. Describe how the project conforms to the LandGuidelines and Studies or Plans for the corridor.

271.127 (a) 2. D SI Is the project located within one mile of the nearest bank of a streamor river listed as a 1-A priority for study by the Department of En-vironmental Resources as a state wild, scenic, recreational, or modifiedrecreational river; or mandated by the U.S. Congress for study or deter-mined by the U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service tomeet the criteria for study for potential inclusion into the National Wildand Scenic Rivers System?If "yes,"a. Identify the river or stream and its distance from the project.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified In the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the charactistics of the project which might create adverseenvironmental, visual, or traffic impacts on or in the vicinity of the riveror stream.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on theriver or stream.

11 RR302727

FORM D

Regulatoryitation Yes No

271,l27(a) 3-D OS Is the project located within one mile of a unit of the National ParksSystem; a state, county, or municipal park; a recreation facility operatedby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; a state forest picnic area; or theAllegheny River Reservoir in the Allegheny National Forest?If "yes,"a. Identify the park or other area and its distance from the project.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified in the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse environmental, visual, or traffic impacts on the park or otherarea.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thepark or other area,

271.l27(a) 4. D !. "D3 Is the project located within one mile of the footpath of the AppalachianTrail?If "yes,"a. Indicate the distance from the project to the Appalachian Trail.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified in the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse environmental, visual, or traffic impacts on the AppalachianTrail.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on theAppalachian Trail.

271.127(a) 5. D S3 Is the project located within one mile of a national natural landmarkdesignated by the U.S. National Park Service; or a natural area, or wildarea designated by the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board.If "yes,"a. Identify the natural landmark, natural area, or wild area and itsdistance from the project.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified in the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse environmental, visual, or traffic impacts on the natural land-mark, natural area, or wild area.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thenatural landmark, natural area, or wild area.

12 AR302728

FORM D

Regulatory"Citation Yes No

271.127{a) 6. D S Is the project located within one mile or within an identifiedimpact area of a national wildlife refuge, national fish hatchery, or na-tional environmental center operated by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?If "yes,"a. Identify the wildlife refuge, fish hatchery, or environmental centerand its distance from the project.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified in the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse environmental, visual, or traffic impacts on the wildlife refuge,fish hatchery, or environmental center.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thewildlife refuge, fish hatchery, or environmental center.

271.127U) 7. D OS Is the project located within one mile of an historic property ownedby the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission?If "yes,"a. Identify the historic property and its distance from the project.b. Conduct visual and traffic analyses as specified in the applicantguidelines.c. Describe the characteristics of the project which mightadverse environmental, visual, or traffic impacts on the historicproperty.d. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thehistoric property.

271.127U) 8. D 03 Is the project located within % mile of an historic site listed in the Na-tional Register of Historic Places or the Pennsylvania Inventory ofHistoric Places; or an archaeological site listed in the Pennsylvania Ar-chaeological Site Survey?if "yes,"a. Identify the historic or archaeological site, and its distance fromthe project.b. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse impacts on the historic or archaeological site.c. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thehistoric or archaeological site.d. Indicate any contact you have had with the Pennsylvania Historicaland Museum Commission about the project.See Appendix C. :

13 RR302729

FORM D

RegulatoryStation Yes No

271.127(a) 9. D Cl Is the project located within % mile of the boundary of a state forestor state game land; or the proclamation boundary of the AlleghenyNatural Forest?if "yes,"a. Identify the forest or game land and its distance from the project.b. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse impacts on the forest or game land.c. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts of theproject on the forest or game land.

271.127(a) 10. D EH Is the project located within an area which is a habitat of a rare,~~ fhreaterTed, or endangered species of plant or animal protected by the

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, or recognized by the Penn-sylvania Fish Commission or Pennsylvania Game Commission?If "yes,"a. identify the species and the habitat area and the location of theproject within the area.b. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse impacts on the species or habitat.c. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thespecies or habitat.d. Describe any contact you have had with the Pennsylvania FishCommission, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Historicaland Museum Commission, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about theproject.

271.127(a) 11. D EH Js the project located on prime farmland (Class I and II soils) as indicatedin the U.S. Soil Conservation Service County Soil Survey?If "yes,"If yes, identify the location and acreage of prime farmland and the loca-tion of the project. No, silt loams classified as III, IV,or VII* "See Hart Engineers,Inc., Dwg. No. NALE-E1,attached

271.127(a) 12. D E Is the project located within a Special Protection Watershed, asdesignated in Chapter 93 of the Rules and Regulations of the Penn-sylvania Department of Environmental Resources?If "yes/'a. Identify the stream and watershed, and the distance of the streamfrom the project.b. Describe the characteristics of the project which might createadverse impacts on the stream.c. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts on thestream.

14

fiR302730

FORM D

Regulatory"Station Yes No

13. S3 D Will the project, absent control measures, result in an increase inpeak discharge rate for stormwater drainage from the project site?If "yes," see attachment.a. Describe the amount of increase in the peak discharge rate forstormwater drainage.b. Describe adverse impacts that might result from the increase inpeak discharge rate for stormwater drainage.c. Describe measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts fromthe increase in the peak discharge rate for stormwater drainage.If no, provide documentation supporting this judgment.

271 ,127(a) 14. D ® Will the project create an increase in traffic on the approach route(s)leading to the project?If "yes,"a. Identify the approach route(s) to the project site, and describe themin terms of:

1) design capacities, roadway width and condition;2) average daily traffic counts (if available from Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation);3) hazardous grades or curves.

b. Describe the expected traffic increase; include number, type, sizeand weight of vehicles and distribution on approach routes.c. Identify and indicate number of residences fronting {50 feet set-back or less) on approach route(s) to the project site.d. Identify any schools, hospitals, or nursing homes located on theapproach route(s) to the project site.e. Describe any special routing or timing of traffic to the project siteto be provided to minimize conflict with other traffic or to prevent safetyhazards. Traffic impacts analyzed for previous questions should bebriefly mentioned.

271 .1 27(a) 1 5. [1 D Is the project located within the watershed or aquifer, and within onemile of a public water supply facility dependent on groundwatersources; or upstream, within the watershed, and within three milesof a public water supply facility dependent on surface sources.If "yes," see attachment.a. Identify the public water supply facility, and its supply source;locate both on a topographic map; and indicate their distances fromthe project.b. ' Briefly describe the public water supply facility, including capaci-ty and population served.c. Describe measures to be taken to protect the public waterfacility from any potential harm.

15 AR30273I

FORM D

egulatoryitation Yes No

271.127(a) 16. D ... S Is the project located in a landslide, sinkhole, or mine subsidence pro-ne area?

If "yes," provide the follwing:

a. Identify the geologic hazard and the location of the project.

b. Indicate how the geologic hazard will affect the project.

c. Describe the engineering and design measures to be taken tominimize the geologic hazard to the project and prevent an increasein danger from the hazard to other property owners in the vicinity.

16

AR302732

FORM D

Part Two: Economic and Social Considerationsf the Department determines that the project will cause environmental harm, despite the mitigationdescribed by the applicant tn Section Two-Part One, the Department will then determine whether theoutweighs the public social and economic benefits of the project. The following questions request informa-tion regarding social and economic benefits. - . . _ . . -

1. Indicate the counties and/or municipalities which will comprise the service area* of the project, and theestimated proportion of the total volume and type of solid wastes which will come from each.

2. Describe how wastes will be transported from their sources to the project (include mode and handlingenrouta).

3. Is the project consistent with local, county or regional solid waste plans, if such plans exist? Indicatewhich plans have been consulted and explain why the project is or is not consistent with each.

4. What factors indicate the need for the project in the identified service areas? Cite local plans, if applicable;present and future expected solid waste volumes and their source within the service area; adequacy of ex-isting facilities to meet present and future needs, etc.

5. If the project will handle residual wastes, indicate the type of industries which need disposal services,number of establishments to be served, general locations of establishments, employment in theseestablishments, and their economic importance. Describe why these wastes are not presently being handledadequately. What will be the impact on industries if a disposal facility is not available?

6. Describe factors (such as location, transportation, geology, etc.) which make the proposed project sitewell-suited to serve the needs described above. Compare the proposed site with other potential sites whichlave been considered, or which may be available within, or reasonably close to the service area, ^fc

7. What revenues will be generated by the project for local jurisdictions (counties, local governments, schooldistricts, etc.) in the form of fees, taxes, royalties, etc.? List type, amount and frequency of payment (yearly,monthly, one-time, etc.)

8. How many people will be employed directly in operating the project and what are their occupations?What will the estimated yearly payroll (in present dollars) be for the project.

*S«rvlC8 arta is that area or areas In which wastes handled at the project wii! be generated.

17 RR302733

ATTACHMENT TO

FORMD

flR30273l»-

ATTACHMENT TO FORM DEXCLUSIONARY AREA CRITERIA/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Form D , Note l ; _ . , . . _ _ .

Refuse disposal will be separated by a minimum of 17_$_ f eet .from .thenearest stream.

SECTION ONE, PART TWO

Question 1; __ _ . . . . . . .

In June and July 1988 a detailed wetland field study was performedby Geoffrey A. Rogalsky, Kenneth J. Corti, and Sharon L. Maurer,professional biologists'with RMC Environmental Services, Pottstown,Pennsylvania. This team of biologists has extensive experience inwetlands identification and delineation in Pennsylvania.Boundaries of wetlands identified were determined using guidanceprovided in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,Technical Report Y-87-1 January 1987. The boundaries were flaggedin the field by RMC and surveyed. The following responses to PADERForm D questions under Section 273.202 (a) (2) are based largelyon the results of RMC's investigation.

a. Do the wetlands serve important natural biological functionsincluding food chain production? general habitat; and nesting,spawning, rearing, and resting sites for aquatic land species?This criterion implies importance for wetlands that a) provideessential or critical habitat for state or federally'listedrare, endangered, or threatened plants or animals or_. b) areof sufficient size or character to be important to thesurvival of other non-listed plants or animals. Anapplication for a stream encroachment permit for theSedimentation Basin D outfall will be filed and a permitobtained from the Bureau of Dams and1 Encroachments prior-toconstruction.

A.I

AR302735

Based on RMC's field inspection and WMNA's correspondencewith state and federal natural resource agencies no state orfederally listed or proposed threatened or endangeredspecies are present on or near the Modern Landfill expansionsite except for occasional transients.Copies of correspondence with Charles J. Kulp, FieldSupervisor with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, StateCollege, Pennsylvania; Clark N. Sniffer, Herpetology andEndangered Species Coordinator with the Pennsylvania FishCommission, Bellefonte, PA; and Jacob I. Sitlinger, Directorof the Bureau of Land Management with the Pennsylvania FishCommission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania are attached inappendix A. The plants and animals which inhabit theproject area are widely distributed and generally common inYork County and throughout Pennsylvania. Wetlands of thekind and size observed at Modern are generally common inYork County and • as a result the Modern site is not uniqueconsidering the commonly found plants and animals. Therelatively small area coupled with common wetland habitatdoes not qualify this site as uniquely important to the wellbeing of either non-listed aquatic plans or animals.Are the wetlands set aside for study of the aquaticenvironment or as sanctuaries or refuges?The Modern Landfill - wetland areas are owned by Modern TrashRemoval of York, Inc. This site is not set aside for studyof the aquatic environment or as_sanctuaries or refuges.

A-2 flR302736

c. Would alteration or destruction of the wetlandsdetrimentally affect natural drainage characteristics,sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushingcharacteristics, natural vater filtration processes, currentpatterns, or other environmental characteristics?Modern Landfill expansion should not detrimentally affectexisting drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns,salinity flushing, water filtration or other environmentalcharacteristics in the wetlands adjacent to the landfill be-cause the expansion permit area will not encroach on thewetlands. The adjacent existing landfill is constructedwith culverts, sedimentation ponds and silt fencing so as toensure that eroded material is not deposited in the wetlandarea, as part of a sediment control plan approved by PADER.During the expansion, DER approved erosion and sedimentationcontrol measures will be in place to prevent damage to thewetlands and waterways.

d. Are the vetlands significant in shielding other areas fromwave action, erosion, or storm damage?The wetland adjacent to the landfill provides no shield toother areas from wave actions, erosion, or storm damage. Itis not associated with nor does it contain barrier benches,islands, reefs, and bars. This criterion is not applicable.

e. Do the vetlands serve as valuable storage areas for stormand flood waters?Almost all of the wetlands found in the expansion propertyare within the regulated 100 year FEMA fioodplain of KreutzCreek or its tributaries, and thus store flood waters. Thelandfill expansion will not encroach on the regulatedfioodplain. Therefore expansion of the landfill should havelittle impact on the value of the wetlands to store floodwaters.

f. Are the vetlands prime natural recharge areas (that is,locations where surface and groundwater are directlyinterconnected)?Based on an examination of the groundwater contours byGolder Assoc, Inc., the area in question is judged to be agroundwater discharge area.

g. Have you applied for a permit for this project under Chapter105? A. 3

&R3G2737

Question 5: " /,"" V. ™;.- lli.-.-."-:.-.~— ;:- ~~,,£-»-,- -™~__-—- ...—.. ....... -

There is one occupied dwelling ideated within 500 feet horizontallyof- the proposed disposal" area, the current owner of this dwellinghas provided written "cbns'ent to"'the proposed location of thefacility. Appropriate .documentation is attached.

Question 7:. '". '.:;.. ...-_;...:._..", :.~ ;.,/--.","= .„"_",.".. . .."-.-.. .. . , - . - •

There are no public water- sources; within 1/4 mile downgradient, or300 feet upgradient of the facility.

There.. are no private, water sources within 300 feet upgradient ofthe -facility; however, there are several private water sourceswithin 1/4 mile" generally' downgradient (east-northeast) of thefacility. These privateTwater sources fall into three categories:wells that areV'-~ndt "is " use, wells controlled by Modern TrashRemoval, and private wells". currently iff "use but not controlled byModern Trash Removal. - Wells in the. first two categories were "notincluded "in "the tabulation because there is no potential impact onthose weils due to tfie landfill expansion. within 1/4 miledowngradient ...of the facility, "there are ±2. private wells currentlyin use but not controlled by Modern Trash Removal.

a) The water, source owners have been notified in writing, tothe .location of the proposed facility. Documentation is_attached.

b) Modern has agreed with' each water source owner toconstruction and maintain a permanent alternative watersupply in the event that the water source owners1 supplybecomes polluted or degraded.- Documentation is attached.

c) See Phase I, Form 12 Narrative for discussion ofreplacement water sources. _.. . -

-E

A.4

&R3Q2738

RR302739

SECTION TWO, PART ONE

Question 13: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a. Without control measures, the project would result in anincrease in the peak discharge rate for stormwater runofffrom the project site. The increase would result fromtopographic alteration of the area by construction of thesloped landfill embankment. Design calculations for theproposed site runoff control measures are included with Form17, "Erosion and Sedimentation Controls".

Adverse impacts associated witk the increase of unrestrictedrunoff could include significant erosion of the landfillslopes and subsequent sediment transport from the site, andperiodic flooding; of the perimeter site area with theassociated operations and/or access interruptions.

Measures will be incorporated into the project design tocontrol stormwater runoff from the site, to providepermanent erosion control for the facility and preventflooding of the perimeter site area. The measures willinclude lined collection/diversion channels on the slopeaccess benches to convey flow to sedimentation basins,channel construction along the perimeter berm to convey flowaway from the site, and construction of permanentsedimentation basins for erosion runoff control. Vegetationwill also be established to minimize long-term erosionpotential of the final slope.

A. 5

ftR3027UQ

stion 15: •_ -• -- - -

a.) There is one public water supply facility within one mile ofthe proposed landfill expansion. This facility is theHillside Mobile Home Park, and has one water supply well.The park and supply well are approximately 1/2 milenorthwest of the landfill.

b.) The Hillside Mobile Home Park presently contains nine mobilehomes , with 30 mobile homes capacity. The mobile homeshouse 2-4 people each. The well itself has a pumpingcapacity of approximately 14 gallons per minute.

. There is very little potential for the mobile home facilityc. jto be harmed by the proposed landfill expansion. The mobilehome facility is not downgradient from the landfill, and islocated at an elevation higher than the landfill.Additionally, groundwater monitoring welIs around thelandfill are placed so as to detect potential contaminantsprior to their reaching a significant distance from site.

A.6

AR3027UI

APPENDIX A

RR3Q27U2

COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA

P.O.BOX 1567HARRIS3URG. PENNSYLVANIA 17105-1567

April 15, 1988

ADMINISTRATIVE 3UHEAUSADMINISTRATION 787-5670

LICENSE OIViSlON 787. JQS*

PERSONNEL 787-7139GAME MANAGEMENT - 737-3323

78'

INFOBMAT10N t EDUCATION 781

LAW ENFOBCEMf NT 787'

LAND MANAGEMENT 787-6319

REAL ESTATf 787-8568

. ft* \

Mr. Sobert HeitmanDistrict Engineer . .Waste Mgt. of North America . .1121 Bordentown Rd. -Morrisville, PA. 19067 ;,

In re: York County - Modern Landfill ... -FADES. Module No. 9 _

Dear Mr. Heitman:

This is in reference to your letter requesting informationrelative to the above project.

We have completed an office review and determined thatexcept for occasional individuals, this project should not affect anyendangered or threatened species of bird or mammal protected by theFederal Endangered Species Act of 1973 or recognized by thePennsylvania Game Commission.

This response relates only to endangered or threatenedspecies. It does not address other concerns of the Pennsylvania GameCommission. If, in the normal review process, it is determined thatthe project may impact critical or unique habitats such as wetlands,wintering areas, or nesting cover, etc., you may be requested toconduct additional studies.

For your convenience, please find attached, a copy of theUnited States Department of Interior's National Wetlands Inventory-Map. Based on a aap reconnaissance of the project area, your projectmay encroach upon wetlands. Any encroachment in wetlands willrequire permits from the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources under the Dam Safety and Encroachment Act, Section 105, andthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct.

If you have any questions on the above, or if we can be offurther assistance, please contact Denver McDowell of my staff atarea code 717-783-1728.

Very truly yours,

T\

Jacob\I. Sitlinger, DirectorBureau^of Land Management

An Eou»l Opportunity Emptoytr

I. *g£ •. -f '** \\ V'K_: m_ V .-——• \ -«03_ -. / xi^* * tt £}f*\*ir*7 . V >' - r*\',\

_cPOWZ«\tt ^-. ••* vi • i——-—^ ,' -'.- , \ .' >Kv \',s [ ->

__ ,,,_;„. ,, , V Mrt

a.2

O°

It 5§

Ji

I?

1 ;F 1^1 * 1111? i S -'

H** al£

r ^- Hli

f JKE sS »'

:l Si

_m" 33Zm

a.3

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Suite 322315 South Alien Street .

State College, Pennsylvania_15301

April 27, 1988 ,,;-

Mr. Robert H. Heitman, P.E. vWaste Management of North

America, Inc.Eastern District Office1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisville, PA 19067

Dear Mr. Heitman:

This responds to your letter of March 29, 1988, requesting informationpertaining to questions on Module Mo. 9 for a proposed solid waste landfillfacility located near Yorkana in Windsor and Lower Windsor Townships, YorkCounty, Pennsylvania.

In response to Question 6, there are no national wildlife refuges, fishhatcheries, or environmental centers operated by the Service within one mileof the site.

In response to Question 10, except for occasional transient species, nofederally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under ourjurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. Therefore, noBiological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the EndangeredSpecies Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is requiredwith the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should project plans change, or ifadditional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, thisdetermination may be reconsidered. A compilation of federally listedendangered and threatened species in Pennsylvania is enclosed for yourinformation. Requests for information regarding State-listed endangered orthreatened species should be directed to the Pennsylvania Game Commission(wildlife), the Pennsylvania Fish Commission {fish, reptiles and amphibians)and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (plants).

Question No. 12 of Module No. 9 asks whether the project, including anyincidental earthmoving or construction activities, is located in or within 300feet of a wetland. According to the Service's National Wetlands Inventory mapfor the Red Lion quadrangle, no wetlands are mapped in the proposed landfillexpansion zone. However, the expansion zone is mapped right to the edge of anunnamed tributary of Kreutz Creek. Any encroachment on the floodway of this

a.4

fiR3027l_6

stream would require a permit from the Department of Environmental Resources(DER). Permit requirements may be obtained from DER at the following address

Khervin Smith, ChiefEnvironmental Review SectionPennsylvania Department of

Environmental ResourcesDiv. of Waterways and Storm

Water ManagementRoom 108, Executive HouseP.O. Box 2357Harrisburg, PA 17120

If we can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Charles J. KuTpSupervisor

Enclosure

RR3027U

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THHZATENE3 SPECIESIN PENNSYLVANIA

Common Name _____ .-. * Scientific Name ______ Status Distribution

FISHES;- . ... :-..:_... ------ - . ; . — . _ - ; - . - : -:.;:.Sturgeon, shortnose* Aeipenser brevlrosttrm E 'Delaware River and Other

Atlantic Coastal water

R£?TILES:NONE

BIKDS:Eagle, bald Haj^laeerus leticpeephalua E Entire stateFalcon, American Faleg peregrinus anaturn E Entire state -peregrine re-establishment to

former breeding rangein progress

Falcon, Arctic • Falco peregrinus tundriua 2 Entire state migratory -peregrine no nesting

MAMMALS r - - "- " - - -. -_-•-•• . . . . . - .—• - : - -Bat, Indiana Myocis ao-ialia .... ... E Entire stateCouga'r, eastern Felia eoncolor cou^uar E Entire state - probably

extinct

HOLLU5KS: ___ _ __ _HONE . ."_!""."" _ ": . ; . "."I .;.:_.;..._.:";;/"":_.:.::: " ._".."

FLANTStPogonia, small laotria medeoloides E Berks, Centre, Chester,vhorled Greene, Monroe,

Hontgomery, PMladelp:Venango Counties .

Principal responsibility for this species is vested vich Che National MsFisheries Service.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

F1N N S Y LVA NIA post Office Box 1467Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120

April 12, 1988Bureau of W»t«r Resources Management 717-787-5008

• "* \'\Robert H. Heitman, District Engineer - -Waste Management of North America, Inc. . f .,,,*-Northeast Region Office /••»'..--=•»••'1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisviile, PA 19067 [ " • ~""' \

Re: DER File No, GO: 141

Dear Mr. Heitman: M L L U U fl

Reference is made to your letter dated March 29, 1988, regarding the proposedexpansion of the sanitary landfill in Windsor and Lower Windsor Townships, York County,Pennsylvania. Our records indicate that there are no public water supply intakes dependent uponground water sources located within one mile, nor are there any public water supply intakesdependent on surface sources within three miles downstream of the proposed site. However, theRed Lion Municipal Authority maintains a public water supply intake from a reservoir on CabinCreek which Is within one mile of the landfill boundary. You may contact the Red Lion Municipal,Authority at Center Square, Red Lion, PA 17356 to determine whether the proposed expansionjwill impact their intake.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Michael Packard at717-7S7-500S.

Sincerely,

Allham A. Cast, ChiefState Water Plan Division

i a.9 AR3027U9

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSIONDivision of Fisheries Management

450 Robinson LaneBefiefbntt PA 16823-9616

April 20, 1988

Waste Management of North America, Inc.Northeast Region OfficeRobert H. Heitman, P.E.1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisville, PA 19067

Dear Mr. Heitman:

I have examined the map accompanying your recent correspondence which showsthe location of a proposed expansion to the Modern Sanitary Landfill inWindsor and Lower Windsor Townships, York County, Pennsylvania.

Presently, none of the fishes, amphibians, or reptiles we list as endangeredor threatened are known to occur at or in the vicinity of this site.

Enclosed is some information concerning endangered and threatened speciesunder our jurisdiction and that of the Game Commission.

Sincerely,

Clark N. SnifferKerpetology and EndangeredSpecies Coordinator

mam

Ends.

cc: R. Snyder

RESOURCEFIRST

. - PROTECT - CONSERVE • ENHANCEa. 11 RR3Q2750

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oeaante and Atmoaphtric AdministrationNATIONAL MAS1NE FISHERIES SERVICE

1 -1 -m *»*-»,, r*rn<y3 j j. JJ j I v / Management Division* L. L UUi I Habitat ConservatioHabitat Conservation Branch

2 State Fish PierGloucester, MA, 01930-3097

April 6. 1988

Robert H. HeitmanDistrict Engineer -• ,,./., j _ 1Waste Management of North America., Inc.1121 Bordentown Road :- - • -**Korrisville, Pennsylvania 19067 . .„_ _.'

Dear Mr. Heitman:

This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1988,regarding the presence of endangered or threatened speciestinder the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Servicenear Windsor and Lower Windsor Townships, York County,Pennsylvania. There are no marine endangered or threatenedspecies found near the proposed expansion of the Modern SanitaryLandfill. Therefore, there is no need for further consultationpursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Act of 1973 f as amended.Should proj ect plans change or new information become availablethat changes the basis for this determination, then consultationshould be reinitiated.

Douglas W. BeachWildlife Biologist

a.12

ftR302751

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION

BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBOX 1026

HARRtSBURC. PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 w J

May 13, 1988 '' -*a\' ^

Robert H. Heitman, P.E.Waste Management of -North America, Inc. 7 •

Eastern District Office __ . . — •» J1121 Sordentown RoadMorrisville, PA 19067

Re: ER # 85 0819 133 CPADER, Module 9, Modern Landfill,Lower Windsor/Windsor TownshipYork County

Dear Mr. Heitman:*"'.The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for

'Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) inaccordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Actof 1966, as amended In 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) ofthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirementsinclude consideration of the project's potential effect upon bothhistoric and archaeological resources.

A preliminary review of this project indicates that there is a highprobability that National Register eligible historic andarchaeological resources exist in the project area. Project plannersshould conduct surveys to identify all possible resources before finalplans are formulated. For assistance in conducting and organizing asurvey, please contact the Bureau for Historic Preservation.

If you need further information in this matter please consultKurt Carr or Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 733-8947.

Dan G. Deibler, ChiefDivision of Planning & Protection

DGD:SZ.vms :cc: Regional Office, DER

ftR302752

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION

BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBOX 1026

HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108*1026

January 5, 1989

W. Fred Kinsey, III, Ph. D.North MuseumFranklin and Marshall CollegeLancaster PA 17604

15S 3H? iiEri/l .CZ H_.:.:3£SRe: ERI 85 0819 133 E

Phase II ArchaeologicalInvestigations for ModernLandfill, Lower Windsor Township,York County

Dear Mr. Kinsey: ^~

The Bureau for Historic Preservation has reviewed this Statefunded, assisted or licensed project under the authority of theEnvironmental Rights amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of thePennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania History Code, 37Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 507 et. sea. (1988). This review includescomments on the project1* potential effect on both historic andarchaeological resources.

The Bureau for Historic Preservation has reviewed the abovetitled archaeological survey report. This investigation was well doneand has contributed important data concerning the distribution andsignificance of archaeological sites in this state. It is our opinionthat no sites were eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places and therefore the project will have no effect onarchaeological resources within the surveyed area.

If you need further information in this matter please consult theDivision of Archaeology at (717) 783-9900.

Sincerely,

Kurt H. Carr, ChiefDivision of Archaeology

and Protection

KC:BW:vms

a.8 AR302753.

,lnd C.S. DAV1DSON (1923-1965)O.M, DAVIDSON (1965-1973)

38 North Duke Street Ybrk, PA 17401 G.E. MILLER {1973-19821(717) 846-4805 0-M- DAVIOSON. JR.. President

16, 1988

Mr. Robert H. Heitman, P.E., District EngineerWaste Management of North America, Inc. MAY 2 n 1988Eastern District Office1121 Bordentown Road MCD CfrflMorrisville. FA 19067 IMClVC.tfl

Re: Modern Laciil - ibrt, PAPA DER Module No. 9Request for Comments

Dear M r . Heitman: . . . . . . . . . .

I attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact you by telephone regarding yourinquir7 of May 2, 1988. Please be advised tha.t the Red Lion MunicipalAuthority does not issue permits relating to wetlands; I suggest that youcheck your documentation regarding this inquiry.

The Red Lion Municipal Authority supplies potable water from its CabinCreek Reservoir, located approximately two miles south of the proposedlandfill expansion. We do not, at this time, feel that the proposed expansionwill adversely Impact the Authority's facilities.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

C.S. DAVIDSON, INC. ——

_jvid] M. \pavidson, Jr., P.E.

DMD/jlscc: Mr. Raymond E. Arnold, Jr., Manager

Red Lion Municipal Authority

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS S AR30275Ua. 10

FILE copyr YORK COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT

1 13 Pleasant Acres Road - York. Pennsytvima 17402 • Phone (717) 771-9430Sept. 29, 1988

CHARLCS *• MESScarman Wast e Management Of North America, Inc.JACK * OIMOF* Eastern District Officev«.-c*.—.. 1121 Borcjentown Road

Morrisville, PA. 19067ELLI* 0. CKOwt. AtCn: Cliff Engle - „ . - r u n i o* V«~L,o»r*eter e Rg; Modern Trash Removal Of YorkLORNE L. OETTER 17 Acre Expansion°"**'*r Windsor Twp.

*isfeNMA*T Lower Windsor Twp.Dear Sir,

CEORCC TROUT

j. DANist wot? The York County Conservation Di strict has completed its*»*•£.«(• o«*ctar review of the erosion and sedimentation control plan forWAYNC SWEITZER the above referenced project. The plan has been reviewedAt.acul* On-wet** ___and is ADEQUATE to meet the requirements of Pa. Title 25,J. RO*ERT HUNTSIERGEM _. ^ . ._ _ , _ ._ ,Ai»ect»i* o»*ei«* Chapter 102, Erosi on Control .•AUSTIN L. STRAUSBAUOH The Conservation District has reviewed this planAt*»c.*i* D««et«, solely to determine whether it is adequate to satisfy the^

requirements of 29 Pa Code 1O2.1 et seq., the Erosion——— Control Regulations of the Department of Environmentalo*****'t*»«£l< Resources. By a determination that the plan is adequate toLCE mwiM meet those requirements, nei ther the conservation districtir...0o cam.*i T*e^ nor the county assumes any responsibi 1 i ty for theMARKKA IEI.AMARTY implementation of the plan or the proper construction and

operation of the faci1ities contained in the pi an. Thedesign structure integrity, and install at ion of the controlmeasures are the responsi bi1i ty of the 1andowner and/or theearthmover.

Before any construction or earthmoving may begin theappropriate and necessary local, state, and federal permi tsmust be secured from the agency having specific permittingauthori ty.

A copy of the erosion and sedimentation control planmust be available at the site of the earthmoving activityduring construction and until the site is stabilized.

Sincerel,

Lee IrwinErosion Control Coordinator

ccs Windsor Twp.Lower Windsor

CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT

a.13 RR302755

NORTHERN EXPANSIONPERMIT APPLICATION

PHASE ISection 6.0Appendix B

WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S.Jurisdictional Boundary Determination

of the Corps'of Engineers for

MODERN LANDFILL EXPANSION AREAS

Windsor and Lower Windsor TownshipsYork County, Pennsylvania

Prepared for

Jbdern Trash Removal of York, Inc.R.D. #9

York, Pennsylvania 17402

Prepared byRMC Environmental ServicesFricks Lock Road, R.D. I

Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464(215)326-9662

August 1988

flR302756

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ........................................................ 12.0 Site Description ................................................... 2

2.1 Identification of Property .................................... 22.2 Physical Characteristics ...................................... 2

3.0 Delineation Methodology3.1 Definition of Corps' Jurisdictional

Limits ....................................................... 73.2 Boundary Determination Methodology ............................ 8

4.0 Wetland Indicator-Parameter Descriptions ............................ 10

4.1 Vegetation .................................................... 104.2 Hydrology ..................................................... 134.3 Soils ......................................................... 13

5.0 Findings of Corps' Jurisdictional Boundaries ........................ 16

6.0 References ......................................................... 19

List of Figures ..

Figure 1 - Site Location Map

Figure 2 - Site Topographic Quadrangle

Figure 3 - Site Aerial Photograph - April 1988

Figure 3a - Floodplain Boundary MapFigure 4 - National Wetlands Inventory Map

Figure 5 - Soil Conservation Survey Map

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photographs - Taken July 1988

Appendix B: Soil Profile Description Forms

Appendix C: Plant Species List and Field Data Sheets

AR3Q2757

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A wetland delineation was conducted by G. Rogalsky, K. Corti, andS. Maurer of RMC Environmental Services, Canberra Industries for ModernTrash Removal of York, Inc. (Modern) to determine the Jurisdictionalboundary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed expansion ofthe Modern Landfill site located on Prospect Road in Windsor and LowerWindsor Townships, York County, Pennsylvania. The Jurisdictional limitswere delineated using procedures developed by the Corps as presented intheir "Wetland Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1. The proce-dures involve examination of hydrologic conditions, soils, and identifica-tion and classification of the dominant vegetation. This report is in-tended to document the conditions of these three parameters throughout thesite sufficiently so that the Corps may make their "waters of the U.S."Jurisdictional determination.

The contents of this report reflect the data requirements pertinentto making wetland determinations using the Corps' multiparameter approach.The site is identified and physically described in the first section. Adetailed delineation methodology is then discussed including applicabledefinitions. Descriptions and interpretations of the three wetland param-eters are third, and finally RMC's findings of the Corps' jurisdiction arepresented (these findings must be confirmed by the Corps for validation).Photographs, soil boring logs and field data forms for the site can befound in the appendices to this report.

&R302758

- 2 -

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Identification of PropertyModern Landfill's potential expansion area is located to the south

of PA Rt, 124 between Riddle and Red Front Roads in Windsor and LowerWindsor Townships, York County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The site coversapproximately 432 acres exclusive of the existing permitted landfill whichis completely enclosed by the proposed expansion properties. Cartesiancoordinates on the Red Lion U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map are N 39° 57'30" lati-tude and W 76° 36'00" longitude (Figure 2). Access to the site is gainedfrom Prospect Road via PA Route 124.2.2 Physical Characteristics

The Modern Landfill expansion site consists of rolling open fields,with some wooded and densely vegetated areas occurring at the northern andsouthern edges of the property. Net relief on the site is approximately280 feet. The open areas of the site consist of active and abandoned ag-ricultural fields including cropl-and, pasture and feed-lots and land thathas been highly disturbed due to landfill-associated support operations.Buildings housing administrative offices and equipment related to thelandfill activities are also on the site. A detailed site plan is pro-vided in the rear pocket of this report. Surrounding lands are in agri-cultural and residential use. The aerial photograph presented in Figure 3shows the physical features and current land use of the study area andsurrounding lands.

The site lies completely within the Kreutz Creek drainage basin.The Creek flows across the northwest corner of the property. Three smallintermittent and perennial unnamed tributaries extend from the creek intothe interior of the study area. Three sedimentation ponds, all function-ing as part of the overall erosion and sedmimentation control plan for thelandfill, are located adjacent to these unnamed tributaries. The Pennsyl-vania Department of Environmental Resources Chapter 93 Water Quality Stan-dards designates the Kreutz Creek basin as having the protected water useof WWF (warm water fisheries). The protected water use designation of WWFis intended to provide for the maintenance and propagation of fish speciesand additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm waterhabitat. Kreutz Creek has a Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)mapped fioodplain that is approximately 500 feet wide at the study area.Two of the unnamed tributataries (designated Tributary No. 5 and No. 6)also have mapped floodplains. Figure 3a presents the FEMA maps for thesite.

RR302759

v.CO&EV 'AGO

Figure 1. SITE LOCATION MAPModern LandfillENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Pricks Lock Rd.. RD #1. Pottstown. PA 19464 (215) 326-9662

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETNATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

Figure 2. SITE LOCATION AND DRAINAGE MAPModern &Source: ftSOS Kefc/ IFfe/i Quad 1981ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Frick» Lock Rd. RD #1. Pottstown. PA 19464 (215) 326-9662

'ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES'•ricks LocK Rd- RD #1. Pqnstown. PA_1_946_4. £21$) 326 9662_

-/pure 3 A, FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY MAPJ Modern .Landfill

Source: Federal Emergency Management AgencyFlood insurance Rate MapInitial Identification AnnLTSZ-S,- oSCALE rH = /bo

——7 --

3.0 DELINEATION METHQDOLO'GY .. ._ : ;.. ... . .... ...

3.1 Definition of Corps' 'Jurisdictional Limits

The Corps' jurisdiction, .covers "Waters of the United States" which in-clude all wetlands, lakes, "streams, impoundments and intermittent drainagewaysthat can in any way be .lin.ked .tQT.lnteCS.t.ate_or.foreign commerce. The limitsof this jurisdiction for non-tidal waters are defined In 33 CFR 328.4(c)(D-(3): : :

(1) In the .absence of adjacent"wetlands, the jurisdiction extends tothe ordinary high water.mark, or

(2) When adjacent.wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyondthe ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.

(3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands thejurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.

Important terms in the description of the Corps' Jurisdictional limits aredefined in 33 CFR 328.3 (b) and (e).

(b) The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated orsaturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and durationsufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do sup-port, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life insaturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, mar-shes, bogs, and similar areas. :

(e) The term "ordinary high watermark" means that line on the. shore"established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physicalcharacteristics ;s.uch as [a] clear, natural line impressed on thebank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction ofterrestrial vegetation, the .presence of litter and debris, or otherappropriate means that consider the characteristics of the sur- - -rounding areas. .. . ;

These limits of jurisdiction cover virtually any.waterbody or wet area in theU.S., natural or man-made, permanent or temporary.

The Corps determines .its Jurisdictional limits through interpretation ofsite-specific conditions. The "ordinary high water mark" is generally inter-pretated-to be the area inundated by a 2-year ,storm, which roughly correspondsto .the top of channel bank in streams. "Wetlands" are defined based on adelineation manual developed by the Corps (Technical Report Y-87-1). Themanual describes three "diagnostic environmental" characteristics", which allwetlands have:

(1) Vegetation. The prevalent vegetation consists of hydrophyticspecies which, due to morphological, physiological, and/orreproductive adaption(s), have the ability to grow, effectivelycompete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions.

(2) Soil. Soils are present and have been classified as hydric, orthey possess characteristics that are associated with reducing .soil..conditions.

(3) Hydrology. The area is inundatecj either permanently or periodical-ly at mean water depths <6.6 ft,''or the soil is saturated to thesurface at some time during the growing season of the prevalentvegetation.

In order for an area to be considered a wetland, a positive indicator must beobserved for each of these three characteristics. :.^

3.2 Boundary Determination Methodology _ __The delineation process was initiated by researching available reference

materials in order to anticipate site conditions. Available references in-clude the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) County Soil Survey, the NationalWetlands Inventory (NWI) map, an aerial photo of the site, and a large scaletopographic map. Examination of these references revealed which portions ofthe site would most likely be included within Corps' jurisdiction so that spe-cial attention could be focused on these areas while on-site.

Wetlands were delineated on the site following in principle the method-ology specified in the Corps' "Wetlands Delineation Manual", "Area Equal To orLess Than 5 Acres in Size". The entire site was first subjected to areconnaissance-level field study in which major plant community types wereidentified throughout the site and rough-mapped. The reconnaissance team col-lected data for each community on dominant vegetation, hydrology and soil con-ditions to determine which among them exhibit wetland characteristics. In ad-dition, each community was examined for evidence of disturbance. This in-formation was recorded on the appropriate data form adapted from the Corps'delineation manual.

Vegetation data was interpreted using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice's 1986 northeast regional plant list, supplemented by information fromvarious vegetation identification keys for species not found on the regionallist. The plant list categorizes species according to the following system:

Obligate f0611. Always found in wetlands under natural (not planted)conditions (frequency greater than 99%), but may persist in nonwetlandsif planted there by man or in wetlands that have been drained, filled,or otherwise transformed into nonwetlands.

Facultative Wetland (FACVn. Usually found,in wetlands (67%-99% fre-quency), but occasionally found in nonwetlands. . .. ..

Facultative (FAC). Sometimes found in.wetlands (34%-66% frequency), butalso occurs in nonwetlands.

Facultative Upland fFACU). Seldom found in wetlands (l%-33% frequency)and usually occurs in nonwetlands. :

AR302755

- 9 -

Nonwetland fUPL). Occurs in wetlands in another region, but not found(<1% frequency) in wetlands in the region specified. If a species doesnot occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the l i s t -

Soils evaluation oh this site was based on a detailed examination of color,mottles, texture, structure, consistence, presence of roots and other charac-teristics as specified in the Corps> manual (paragraph 44 f), Munsell colorcharts were used to determine soil color. Hydrology was determined based ontopographic position and .the list of indicators from the Corps' manual (para-graph 49 b).

The results of the data collection effort were reviewed to determine thesite-specific indicators of transition from wetland to upland for each pair ofadjacent plant communities. These transition indicators were then applied, inthe field to locate the wetland-upland transition point, which corresponds tothe Corps' Jurisdictional boundary where wetlands are present. The line wasmarked in the field with a numbered surveyors' flags. Photographs were takento document site conditions at the time of delineation.

Other waters of the U.S. under Corps' jurisdiction were delineated basedon application of the hydrology parameter alone. Swales and channels weretraced upgradient until no signs of concentrated flow were observed and noindications of upgradient wetlands could be found. The channels and swalesincluded were flagged at the top-of-bank of the main flow path.

The flagged line was recovered by a surveying crew and the pointsplotted on the site topographic map. The plotted surveyed line was fieldverified to ensure accuracy.

AR3027&S

- 10 -

4.0 Wetland Indicator Parameter Descriptions

4 . 1 Vegetation _ . . . . . . . . _

Many different plant communities are present on the site. Communities Idominated by species characteristic of wetlands are located in six areas. IThese areas are scattered throughout the site, though primarily in associationwith Kreutz Creek and its tributaries. The remainder consists of cropland,mature deciduous mesic forest and old field communities. The first wetlandcommunity consists of scrub/shrub vegetation and is located near the south-eastern corner of the property at the head of Tributary No. 6. Common speciesinclude skunk cabbage fSymplocarpus foetidus. QBL), .jewelweed fImoatlenscapensis, FACW), rough bluegrass (Poa trivialis, FACW), elderberry fSambucuscanadensls, FACW-)., and sedges (Carex SPP., at least FAC). Other wetlandplant species occur as pockets of vegetation in Tributary 6rs channel thatruns along the eastern and northeastern portions of the property. These oc-casional pockets include soft rush fJuncus effusus, FACW+), common cattail(Tvpha latifolia. OBL), smartweed (Polygonum spp., FACW), duckweed fLemnaobscura, OBL), and fowl mannagrass fGlvcerTa striata, OBL..

A mixed emergent/shrub wetland plant community is located adjacent tothe west side of Riddle Road approximately 800 feet from its intersection withRoute 124. Common species here are silver maple (Acer saccharinum, FACW}, redmaple (Acer rubrum, FAC), silky dogwood fCornus amomum, FACW), elderberry,reed canarygrass fphalaris arundinacea. FACW+), jewelweed, and cattail.

Two communities similar to the one mentioned previously occur on theeast side of Riddle Road. One of these is adjacent to the.north side of KreutzCreek and is additionally vegetated with black willow (Salix nigra. FACW+),buttonbush fCephalanthus occidental is. OBL), sensitive fern fOnqcleasenslbllls, FACW), and sweetflag fAcorus calamus, OBL). _TFie second simitarcommunity can be found adjacent to the south side of Kreutz Creek and RiddleRoad. Dominant species here include rice cutgrass fLeersIa orvzoldes, OBL),arrowhead fSagittaria australis, OBL), speckled alder (Alnus, rugosa, FACW+),and jewelweed.

The last group of wetland plant species is a scrub/shrub community lo-cated on the northwest corner of the property and is composed of silky dog-wood, speckled alder, skunk cabbage, soft rush, reed canarygrass, fringedsedge (Carex crinita v. gynandra, OBL), tussock sedge (Carex stricta. OBL),tearthumb fPolvgonum sagittatum. OBL), arrowhead, and buttonbush. This wet-land plant community is the only one on the site detected by National WetlandsInventory (NWI) Mapping (Fig. 4). It is classified as a palustrinescrub/shrub emergent wetland.

Figure 4 also addresses and identifies four more areas within the pro-posed expansion site. The area designated as palustrine open water inter-mittently exposed/permanent, excavated (POWZx) located in the southcentralportion of the site no longer exists. It is believed to have been a sedimen-tation pond related to past landfill activities. An existing vernal farm pondis classified as palustrine open water, semipermanent, diked/impounded (POWFh)on the NWI map that should contain wetland plant communities or be fringed bythem. The pond Is dry and predominantly unvegetated at present. The channelclassified as riverine lower perennial, open water, permanent (R20WH) istributary No. 5 (FEMA). Lastly, tributary No. 5's tributary is addressed aspalustrine emergent, narrow-leaved persistent, temporary (PEM5A). The banks

AR302767

- 11 - • -

of the two channels are dominatd by upland species. However, occasional scat-terings .of wetland species exist In the channels.

The upland sections of the.property are vegetated by old field and mesicforest communities". The forest community is located at the southcentral edgeof the property, and most of the remainder of the uncultivated property con-sists of old field habitat. Common old field plant species include daisyfleabane (Erigeron annuus. FACUK prickly lettuce (Lactuca saligna. ?FACU),Canada thistle fCirsium arvense. FACU), common ragweed fAmbrosiaartemisiifolla. FACU)", lance-leaved'goldenrod (Solidago graminifolia. UPL),Canada goldenrod fSoli dago canadensis. FACUK Kentucky bluegrass fPoapratensls. FACU), Timothy grass. fPhleum pratense, FACU), and common plantainfPlantago major, FAC, FACW). The upland forest community is dominated bytulip tree fLiriodendron tulipfera. FACU), red maple, black cherry (Prunusserotina. FACUj. white oak (Quercus rlba, FACU), spicebush fLindera benzoin,FACW-), Virginia creeper (Parthenoccissus guinguefolia, FACU), and white avensfGeum canadense, FACU).

Photographs (Appendix A) and Corps of Engineers' data sheets (AppendixC) document our field survey and findings. A list of common species foundthroughout the site and their wetland indicator status is also presented inAppendix C.

R.R3027.68

shrub

R20WH = Riverine Lower Perennial. Open Water_PFLCx = Palustrine Fiat'jSeasonal, Excavated

—' POWKZx = Palustrine Open Water, Artificial• Palustrine Emergent

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET " i " " : ;NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM Dr 1929 ;

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESHd,, RO **1, Pottstown. PA 19454 (2151 326-9662

Figure ~4.~ NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAPModern Landfill .

Source: USFWS NWI 1 gSrt G&4-tfV- Q

phase i remedial investigation report modern landfill … · 2020-03-12 · phase i remedial...

Documents