PERMFILE137301

• Permit No: C1981019
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/11/2001
• Doc Name: Sections 6 - 9
• Section_Exhibit Name: Exhibit 12 Experimental Part 2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

i
3. Although an elaborate drainage blanket underlying the •
fill would certainly reduce ground water problems,
we do not feel the expense is warranted at this time.
~` 4. We recommended that the fill be placed initially
in maximum 50-foot lifts with each lift extended to
the western fill limit. This procedure will mini-
mize local short-term instabilities and produce a
~ gradual loading allowing ttie weaker underlying na-
tural soils time to consolidate. In tfie areas of
relatively weak foundation soils west of boring B-104,
some instabilities caused by local base failures
may occur duffing placement of the initial few lifts.
Should this occur, filling should be temporarily
stopped in the area. Other procedures might include
locally reducing lift height, locally flattening the
slope, and/or placement of a temporary berm. As
with any fill operation of this magnitude, the edge •
of each lift should be watched carefully for evidence
of sloughing or instabilities of either the fill
itself or the underlying foundation soils. In our
opinion unless the surface layers become softened
and/or water saturated, it is not required to
excavate any surface soils or provide any special
subgrade preparation prior to placing the waste
dump fill.
5. Should it be decided to fill at 2:1, we recommended
that we re-evaluate the operation after the first
or second lift is placed. Our primary concern would
be to assess the permeability of the fill. The fill
material examined during our site visit contained a
considerable amount of silt and probably has too low
a permeability to eliminate any ground water buildup.
}lowever, we understand that with time the fill should