Order this information in Print

Order this information on CD-ROM

Download in PDF Format

     

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Table H3. Contaminated and Cap Material Volumes and Mound Dimensions
Back | Up | Next

Click here for a printable version

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home


   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Combat
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
USMC
   
Products
  Educational CD-ROM's
Printed Manuals
Downloadable Books
   

 

Table H3
Contaminated and Cap Material Volumes and Mound Dimensions
Tot Vol, m3
Apron Vol, M3
Footprint, m2,
Max thick, m
( yd 3)
(yd3)
Project
% Total
(acres)
(ft)
Contaminated
Port Elizabeth/
448,000
52,000
11.6
1,470,000
2.40
Newark
(586,000)
(68,000)
(363)
(8.0)
Generic No. 1
96,600
49,900
51.7
785,400
0.9
(Figure H1)
(126,300)
(65,300)
(194)
(3.0)
Generic No. 2
96,600
49,900
51.7
785,400
0.9
(Figure H2)
(126,300)
(65,300)
(194)
(3.0)
Cap
Port Elizabeth/
1,870,000
1,040,000
55.6
1,470,000
1.8
Newark (1 m cap
(2,445,900)
(1,360,300)
(363)
(5.91)
over entire project)
Generic No. 1
847,200
140,400
16.6
1,097,000
0.9
(Figure H1) (0.9 m
(1,108,100)
(183,600)
(271)
(2.95)
cap over entire
project)
Generic No. 2
347,800
15,100
4.3
885,800
0.9
(Figure H2) (0.9 m
(454,900)
(19,750)
(219)
(2.95)
cap over main
mound, 0.3 m cap
over apron)
extends a distance of 15 to 30 m beyond the expected edge of the contaminated
material.
For sites with significant currents (say 30-50 cm/sec and greater) some loss of
cap material will probably be experienced. The Seattle District has documented
that for small sites (100 to 150 m overall dimensions) this "volume lost," which
is a actually cap material that is moved beyond the edge of the contaminated
sediment, can be from 10 to 20 percent of the estimated volume required based
on a flat cap over the contaminated sediment footprint (Parry 1994).
For a fine-grained cap, the volume lost to consolidation will have to be taken
into account for the erosion layer. An estimate of the amount of consolidation
over time will be required and the additional thickness added to account for
potential erosion. Note that the reduced cap thickness from consolidation may
not be a problem from a chemical isolation standpoint due to advection of con-
taminants. The reduced cap thickness from consolidation is somewhat compen-
sated for by the reduced void ratio and permeability, creating more tortuous
paths for the contaminants to diffuse through.
H10
Appendix H Level-Bottom Capping Projects

Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us - Support Integrated Publishing

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business