Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 323

Sustainability Assessment of Conventional and Alternate Landfill Cover

Systems

Marat Goldenberg1 and Krishna R. Reddy2

1
Environmental Engineer, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., 1435 Opus Place,
Downers Grove, IL 60515. E-mail: mmgoldenberg@burnsmcd.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 842 West
Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60607. E-mail: kreddy@uic.edu

Abstract

A conventional landfill cover system composed of a geomembrane and low permeability soil is
the typical minimum requirement for landfill covers as required by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). More recently, alternate cover systems have been used to reduce
costs and still meet the regulatory objectives. Evapotranspiration (ET) cover systems have gained
popularity over the years due to their low cost and ability to meet the performance objectives
when designed properly. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate alternate landfill cover systems
and to provide a sustainability assessment by evaluating the carbon footprint and the life cycle
assessments of three commonly used landfill covers. The findings suggest that while an ET cover
system is the most sustainable alternative in most cases, hauling soils greater distances can result
in an ET cover being less sustainable and likely costlier due to the increased transportation.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional final cover design in the United States is generally based on the United States
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While individual states have the ability to
prescribe their own rules, they generally comply with the RCRA guidelines, and in some cases,
go above and beyond RCRA’s base requirements. Of particular interest to landfill covers, these
regulations require a cover to be no more permeable than a landfill bottom liner in order to
prevent a “bathtub effect.” Because soil will not be able to reach as low of a permeability as a
geomembrane (GM), these rules basically imply that if a landfill bottom liner is composed of a
geomembrane, the landfill cover will also need to consist of a geomembrane. Only older landfills
may have been constructed without a geomembrane component. Current industry standard is to
install a geomembrane in a landfill bottom liner.
Conventional landfill covers typically include a geomembrane over a compacted clay
liner (CCL) or a low permeability soil (either 10-7 cm/sec or 10-5 cm/sec, depending on the
individual state). Depending on the geology of the surrounding area, clay can often times be
limited in supply. A common alternative to low permeability soil is a geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL). Cover soil is typically installed above each of these alternatives.
Evapotranspiration (ET) covers have gained popularity due to their general lower cost,
and when designed properly, their ability to perform as required per the prescriptive cover
criteria. ET covers are otherwise known as water balance covers, where leakage is controlled by
balancing the water storage capacity of unsaturated finer-textured soils and the ability of plants
and the atmosphere to extract stored water from the soil.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 324

In most cases, the driver between a traditional design and an alternate design is cost.
While cost is an important factor to both the designer and the owner, there is often a clear
correlation between cost and sustainability. A lower cost alternative is also often times the more
sustainable alternative. In the context of this paper, sustainability is defined as selecting the
option that has the least impact to the environment - in terms of emissions (greenhouse gases),
consumption of nonrenewable resources, and overall impacts on human health. The goal of this
paper is to compare and contrast various designs, and determine which option will yield the least
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

negative impact to these categories. On construction projects that require importing large
quantities of material, transportation tends to result in the greatest amount of emissions. To
evaluate the sustainability of traditional and alternative cover systems, a carbon footprint
analysis is performed. Additionally, SimaPro is used to evaluate the life cycle impacts of three
commonly used landfill covers – geomembrane over a low permeability soil, geomembrane over
a GCL, and an ET cover. Prior to evaluating the sustainability of these different cover systems, a
brief background on the advantages and disadvantages of these systems is provided.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATE

COVER SYSTEMS

Several site specific parameters apply when designing and constructing an ET cover. These
include the climatic conditions, available soils and their water storage capacities, the required
soil thickness, and the available plant species’ ability to uptake water. Each site needs to be
evaluated with care to ensure that an ET design will control the water intake. With proper design,
the potential benefit of an ET cover is a much lower cost because barrier or drainage layers are
not needed. They require less energy for mixing and engineering, as well as placement and
compaction of soils.
As with any alternate system, there are disadvantages to ET cover systems. For instance,
ET covers may not be appropriate at facilities with insufficient evapotranspiration to remove the
precipitation from the soil column or where the geology is unfavorable. They may not be
accepted by a regulatory agency and may have increased costs associated with test pads. In 1998,
the USEPA initiated the Alternate Cover Assessment Program (ACAP) to evaluate the field
performance of traditional and alternate landfill covers (Albright et al. 2010). ET covers were
installed at 12 sites, and showed highly variable performance, with percolation rates ranging
from 0 to 207 mm/yr. The performance was strongly related to the site climate, with the lowest
percolation rates occurring in arid or semi-arid climates, and the highest rates measured in sub-
humid and humid climates. The cost of an ET cover will remain low only if the required soils are
available nearby. Because of their increased thickness, almost 3 meters in some cases, the cost
to transport a large quantity of soil may exceed the cost to construct a traditional composite cover
system.
With their possible limitations, ET covers can be effective in providing adequate low
permeability covers in dry climates, provided that they are designed and constructed with
appropriate soils, thicknesses, and sustainable vegetation. These are engineered systems that are
capable of meeting regulatory requirements at exceptionally lower costs as compared to
traditional cover systems.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 325

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF COVER SYSTEMS

When evaluating the sustainability of conventional (GM/CCL), modified conventional

(GM/GCL), and alternate cover systems (ET covers), the carbon footprint of each alternative is
an important indicator of the comparative energy efficiencies and their impact to the
environment. Athanassopoulos and Vamos (2011) previously compared the carbon footprint
between compacted clay and GCL liner systems. To take this study a step further, an ET cover
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

can be included in this assessment. Emissions can be calculated using Emission Factors (EF)
(USEPA 2005a,b; USEPA 2008a,b,c). An Emission Factor is the ratio of greenhouse gases
emitted per unit quantity of energy consumed or material produced. The primary greenhouse
gases included in the carbon footprint calculations include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide. Each gas has a different global warming potential, or a measure of how much a given
mass of a greenhouse gas contributes to global warming or climate change. The global warming
potentials for the greenhouse gases considered are: Carbon Dioxide = 1.0; Methane = 21.0; and
Nitrous Oxide = 310.0. Using the relative GWPs of the GHGs as reported in EPA document
EPA420-F-05-002, the mass of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) was calculated as follows:

kg CO2 + (21.0 × kg CH 4 ) + (310.0 × kg N 2O ) = kg CO2 eq

While an attempt was made to reasonably include as many emission sources as possible,
selected emission sources were excluded from the study boundaries, since they represent a very
small percentage of the overall total carbon footprint and are difficult to estimate. Emission
sources included:
• Emissions associated with the mining, hauling, and installation of low permeability soil.
• The carbon footprint values for the layers placed over the low-permeability soil layer (the
HDPE geomembrane, drainage geocomposite, the 0.3-meter thick protective soil layer)
were estimated using solely the emission factors in the Inventory of Carbon and Energy
(ICE) (Hammond and Jones, 2008).
• Emissions associated with the transportation of the geomembrane and the geocomposite.
• Emissions associated with the mining of bentonite, manufacturing of geotextiles,
transportation of geotextiles and bentonite, manufacturing the GCL, and transporting the
GCL.
• Emissions associated with the mining of soil for the ET cover, the transportation of 50%
of the cross-section, and the installation of the soil. A 1.5 meter thick ET cover is
assumed, which is based on the average thickness of ET cover systems from the ACAP
study (Albright et al. 2010).
The analyses are summarized in Appendix 1. CO2 emission factors for the various
transportation and construction components of each process were obtained from USEPA
(2005a,b, 2008a,b,c) and University of Bath (2008). Fuel consumption rates for the various
construction equipment used by the three options were obtained from Caterpillar (2010).
Information on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the mining and processing of
bentonite clay was provided by DAI Environmental (2010).
Since soil transport is such a large component of the overall carbon footprint, a sensitivity
analysis for this variable was performed for both the conventional and ET covers, as shown in
Figure 1. The figure shows the linear relationship between the distances from the clay or ET soil
borrow source to the project location and the overall carbon footprint associated with the

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 326

compacted clay liner and ET cover options. Because this is a hypothetical landfill, the distances
to the borrow sources, and the geosynthetic (GCL, geomembrane, and geocomposite) plants are
unknown. Two assumptions were made for the GM/GCL alternate, a distance of just 100 km and
3,000 km for comparison. Based on this consideration, and assuming that half of the ET borrow
source will need to be transported, the transported soil would need to be within 22 km from the
landfill provided the closer distance to the GCL plant. The low permeability soil borrow source
for the conventional cover system would need to be within 4 km from the landfill to yield a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lower carbon footprint than the GM/GCL cover. The disparities are simply due to the greater
number of trucks necessary to haul soil from the borrow source to the project site. The carbon
footprint can also be compared between the conventional (GM/CCL) and the ET cover systems.
If the distance to one or the other is known, it is possible to determine the more sustainable
option from a carbon footprint standpoint. As expected, if even half of the ET soil borrow source
is on-site, the ET cover should be the most efficient option. The conventional cover system still
requires a geomembrane, a drainage layer, additional soil preparation, and cover soil (sand was
assumed), which adds significant emissions.

300,000

GM/Compacted Clay
Emissions (kg CO 2 equivalents / hectare)

GM/GCL (100 km)

GM/GCL (3000 km)
ET Cover

200,000

100,000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance to Clay/ET Borrow Source (km)

Figure 1: Carbon Footprint Evaluation of GM/CCL, GM/GCL, and ET Cover Systems

While the carbon footprint is an important indicator of the over sustainability assessment,
other environmental impacts need to be considered as well. Life cycle assessment (LCA) using
SimaPro software allows users to assess the life cycle of a product or a system for such
environmental impacts, from raw material extraction through material processing,
manufacturing, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. A LCA
compiles an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs, and uses this data to evaluate the
potential impacts (Goedkoop et al. 2010).
This analysis made some basic assumptions with respect to the location of the ET soil
borrow source, the low permeability soil borrow source for the conventional cover, and the
distance from the geosynthetic manufacturing facilities. For a given project, all of these variables
would be known, and accordingly, a site-specific analysis is recommended when using SimaPro
for comparing the sustainability of alternatives options. A summary of the estimated quantities

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 327

are presented in Table 1. The SimaPro analysis assumed that the ET cover soil is on-site, where
transportation of soil is not needed. The SimaPro analysis assumes a distance of 10 km for the
low permeability soil source, and a distance of just 100 km from the geosynthetic plants. As
demonstrated in the carbon footprint analysis, the ET cover system would allow for a greater
hauling distance if the geosynthetic sources were a greater distance away to have an equal carbon
footprint. The following inputs were used in the SimaPro analysis to compare the impacts of
each cover system.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1: Input Materials and Processes for SimaPro.

Material and Process ET GM/GCL GM/CCL Notes
Assume 1.5 m thick for ET
Excavate soil 15,000 m3 NA 6,000 m3
cover, 0.6 m for clay cover
Transport soil NA NA 207,640 tkm Assume ET soil on-site
Assume 1.5 m thick for ET
Install Soil 15,000 m3 NA 6,000 m3
cover, 0.6 m for clay cover
3 3
Mine cover soil NA 3,000 m 3,000 m Assume 30 cm of cover
Install cover soil NA 3,000 m3 3,000 m3 Assume 30 cm of cover
Manufacture GM
NA 15 m3 15 m3 Based on density of 0.94 g/cc
(resin)
Transport
NA 4,500 tkm 4,500 tkm Assume 100 km
Geomembrane
Mine Bentonite NA 36,600 kg NA Assume 3.6 kg/m2 in GCL
Assume 305 g/m2 total in
Manufacture GT (PP) NA 3,050 kg NA
GCL
Transport GCL NA 15,545 tkm NA Assume 100 km.

SimaPro does not currently have the ability to consider the energy inputs required to
manufacture the specific geosynthetics. For instance, while the program has the ability to take
into account the raw ingredients required to manufacture a GCL (bentonite mining and
polypropylene for the geotextiles), it does not have the ability to take these raw ingredients and
incorporate them into the finished GCL product. The manufacturing of a GCL can require a
significant source of energy. The same applies to an HDPE geomembrane. While SimaPro has
the ability to account for the resin required to manufacture a geomembrane, it does not have the
ability to take into account the resources required for the actual manufacturing of the HDPE
geomembrane. This greatly reduces the impact to both the conventional cover (GM/CCL) and
the modified conventional (GM/GCL). In reality, the impacts from both of these options will be
greater, and the data below is conservative with respect to an ET cover. In other words, an ET
cover is expected to be more sustainable compared to the conventional options than shown in the
results in Figure 2.
Assuming that all of the ET soil is onsite, the ET cover system has the lowest impact for
each parameter except eutrophication. However, as noted above, the impacts in SimaPro are
undervalued for the other two alternatives, which will therefore allow the ET cover option to
have the lowest impact assuming that all of the soil is on-site, counting the additional impacts to
manufacturing the GCL, geomembrane, and drainage geocomposite. Comparing the global

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 328

warmingg impacts froom SimaPro o to the valu ues from thee carbon foootprint assesssment abovee, the
global warming is allmost identiccal for the ET
E cover. Thhe global waarming impaccts are higheer for
the otherr two systeems, which are explain ned in largee part by tthe additionnal impacts from
geosynth
hetic manufacturing.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figu
ure 2: SimaP
Pro Analysiis assumingg that ET Sooil is On-sitee

Tab
ble 2: SimaP Pro Numeriical Results
Impact category Unit GM M/GCL GM/CCL ET
Glob
bal warming kg CO2 eq 445,833 114,772 15,947
Acid
dification H+ mmolle eq 11,930,289 47,533,281 8,146,0799
HH cancer
c kg C6H6 6 eq 36 131 20
HH noncancer
n kg C7H7 7 eq 664,230 483,587 24,474
HH criteria
c air po
ollutants microDAL LYs 33,588 6,891 2,384
Eutro
ophication kg N eq 11 48 14
Ecotoxicity kg 2,4-D D eq 55 202 37
Smogg kg NOx eq 280 1,201 226
Natu
ural resource depletion MJ surplus 2442,123 154,848 1,365
Wateer intake liters 7,0042,055 51,188,221 5,021,141
Ozonne depletion kg CFC-11 eq 8.5 87.8 0.8

As
A shown in n Table 2, an ET cov ver, assuminng all of thhe soil is oon-site will have
significanntly lower impacts
i for global warmming, water intake, andd ozone deplletion. If thee soil
required for an ET co over needs too be transported, the imppacts associaated with an ET cover w
will be
substantiially higher,, potentially
y resulting ini greater iimpacts thann the conventional sysstems
dependinng on the so ource locatioon of each option.
o Becaause a typiccal ET coverr cross-sectiion is
much thiicker (at leasst twice as th
hick on averrage as a connventional ssoil/geomem mbrane coverr), the
hauling required
r forr an ET cov ver will have the greateest impact oon its sustainnability. Forr this
reason, a site-speciffic analysis is recommeended to evvaluate the sustainabilitty of each ccover
system, based
b on the distance of each source.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 329

CONCLUSIONS

While cost and performance are the typical drivers for one design over another, sustainability
should be considered as well. In general terms, cost and environmental sustainability go hand in
hand in most cases. For a landfill project, much of that is driven by the amount of hauling
required to transport soil. Transporting soils greater distances will result in a project that likely is
not very sustainable in terms of resources consumed and impact to the environment, given other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

possible alternatives. The cost will be higher to transport materials greater distances as well. This
paper evaluated the carbon footprint, and additional sustainability parameters using SimaPro
software for life cycle impacts. Certain assumptions were made for this project, such as the
distances from soil and geosynthetic sources to the project site; however, this is just one example
and site specific evaluations are recommended. Because geosynthetics typically require only a
few trucks per hectare at most, transporting soils are the main contributors to environmental
impacts. ET soil covers are typically much thicker as compared to conventional barriers, and
hauling soil a significant distance will likely render an ET cover both unsustainable and likely
more expensive as compared to other cover systems. ET cover systems also need to be evaluated
on a site-specific basis for performance. While many ET cover systems have performed as
required, many have also failed due to insufficient design, and due to placement in humid
climates that at ET cover simply cannot sustain. With the proper resources available nearby, an
ideal climate, and a proper design, an ET cover system can be the most sustainable alternative for
a landfill cover.

REFERENCES

Albright, W.H., Benson, C.H., and Waugh, W.J. (2010). Water Balance Covers for Waste
Containment: Principles and Practice. ASCE Press.
Athanassopoulos, C. and Vamos R.J. (2011), “Carbon Footprint Comparison of GCLs and
Compacted Clay Liners.” Proceedings of the 24th GRI Conference: Optimizing
Sustainability Using Geosynthetics, Dallas, TX.
Benson, C., Sawangsuriya, A., Trzebiatowski, B., and Albright, W. (2007). Post-Construction
Changes in the Hydraulic Properties of Water Balance Cover Soils, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(4), 349-359.
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D. E. and Koerner, R. M. (2002), “Assessment and Recommendations for
Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems”, EPA/600/R-02/099.
Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 40, January 2010.
DAI Environmental, Inc. (2010), AMCOL Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Internal Report.
Goedkoop, M., Schryver, A.D., Oele, M., Durksz, S., and de Roest, D. (2010). SimaPro 7
Tutorial, Version 3.5, Pre Consultants, Netherlands.
Hammond, G. and C. Jones (2008), “Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a”.
USEPA (2005a), “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline
and Diesel Fuel”. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-05-001.
USEPA (2005b), “Emission Facts: Metrics for Expressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon
Equivalents and Carbon Dioxide Equivalents”. Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
EPA-420-F-05-002.
USEPA (2008a), “eGRID-The Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database for
2007”. USEPA Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 330

USEPA (2008b), “Climate Leaders Guidance for Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion
Sources”. Office of Air and Radiation (6202J), EPA430-K-03-005.
USEPA (2008c), “Climate Leaders Guidance for Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business
Travel, and Product Transport”. Office of Air and Radiation (6202J), EPA-430-R-08-006.
USEPA (2010), “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 98.
WRI (2004), “GHG Protocol-A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Edition.” World Resources Institute.

Appendix 1 - Carbon Footprint Calculation Assumptions

kg CO2e/
Process Step Assumptions
hectare
ET Cover
Excavate Soil at Borrow CAT 330 Excavator, operating 80 hours/ha. Assume 24.5 Liters/hr
5,312
Source fuel consumption
Assume site is 16 km from borrow source, and 552 truckloads
Haul Soil to Job Site Varies
(each carrying 15 m3 of clay) are needed to cover 1 hectare
Subgrade preparation

CAT D6 dozer, operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 25.7 Liters/hr

Rough grading 1741 diesel fuel consumption, based on medium work application and
medium engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).

CAT 160 Grader, operating 25 hours/ha. 23.1 Liters/hr diesel fuel

Fine grading 1565 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
Construct ET Liner
Operating 80 hours/ha. Assume 25.7 Liters/hr diesel fuel
CAT D6 Bulldozer 5,572 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).

Operating 40 hours/ha. Assume 14 Liters/hr diesel fuel

10,000-gallon water truck 1,518
consumption (same as telehandler).

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 331

Geomembrane/Compacted Clay Liner or Low Permeability Soil

Excavate Soil at Borrow CAT 330 Excavator, operating 40 hours/ha. Assume 24.5 Liters/hr
2,656
Source fuel consumption
Assume site is 16 km from borrow source, and 552 truckloads
Haul Clay to Job Site Varies
(each carrying 15 m3 of clay) are needed to cover 1 hectare
Subgrade preparation
CAT D6 dozer, operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 25.7 Liters/hr
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rough grading 1741 diesel fuel consumption, based on medium work application and
medium engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
CAT 160 Grader, operating 25 hours/ha. 23.1 Liters/hr diesel fuel
Fine grading 1565 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
Construct Clay Liner
Operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 25.7 Liters/hr diesel fuel
CAT D6 Bulldozer 1,741 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
Operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 25 Liters/hr diesel fuel
CAT 815 smooth drum
2,846 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
compactor
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
Operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 14 Liters/hr diesel fuel
10,000-gallon water truck 949
consumption (same as telehandler).
Geomembrane (GM) 25,944 From ICE 1.6a (polyethylene) = 1.6 tonnes CO2/tonne PE
Drainage Geocomposite
44,000 from ICE 1.6a (polyethylene) = 1.6 tonnes CO2/tonne PE
(DGC)
Transport GM and DGC 3,000 Assume 100 km and 1 truck for each product
Place Cover Soil 26,004 From ICE 1.6a (sand) = 0.005 tonnes CO2/tonne sand

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 332

Geomembrane/Geosynthetic Clay Liner

Fuel usage provided by ACC. Emission factor (2.71 kg CO2e / liter
Mine Bentonite 391 diesel), from EPA420-F-05-001. Assumes 49.45 metric tons of
bentonite per hectare lined area.
Fuel usage provided by ACC. Emission factor (2.71 kg CO2e / liter
Haul to Processing Plant 280 diesel), from EPA420-F-05-001. Assumes 49.45 metric tons of
bentonite per hectare lined area.
Provided by DAI Environmental. Includes bentonite (stockpiling,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

blending, drying, crushing, conveying), and GCL (needlepunching)

In-Plant Processing 2126
processes. Includes all plant fuel sources (electric, gas. diesel, coal,
natural gas/propane) for 2010.
Geotextiles woven
From ICE 1.6a (polypropylene) = 2.7 tonnes CO2/tonne PP.
Manufacture 3416
Woven geotextile weight = 0.11 kg PP/m2.
Distance from Georgia to Lovell, WY = 2760 km, with 160-km
Transport to GCL plant 1,454
origination and return trips. 150,580 m2/truck
Geotextile Nonwoven
From ICE 1.6a (polypropylene) = 2.7 tonnes CO2/tonne PP.
Manufacture 6210
Nonwoven geotextile weight = 0.2 kg PP/m2.
Distance from Georgia to Lovell, WY = 2760 km, with 160-km
Transport to GCL plant 5,269
origination and return trips. 28,100 m2/truck
Transport GCL to Job Site Varies
CAT TL355 Telehandler, operating 25 hours/ha. 14 Liters/hr diesel
Unload GCL 949 fuel consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
Subgrade preparation

CAT D6 dozer, operating 25 hours/ha. Assume 25.7 Liters/hr

Rough grading 1,741 diesel fuel consumption, based on medium work application and
medium engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).

CAT 160 Grader, operating 25 hours/ha. 23.1 Liters/hr diesel fuel

Fine grading 1,565 consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
CAT 815 Compactor (smooth drum), operating 25 hours/ha. 42
Liters/hr diesel fuel consumption, based on medium work
Rolling 2,846
application and medium engine load factor (CAT performance
handbook).
CAT 330 Excavator, operating 25 hours/ha. 24.5 Liters/hr diesel
Deploy GCL 1,660 fuel consumption, based on medium work application and medium
engine load factor (CAT performance handbook).
from ICE 1.6a (polyethylene) = 1.6 tonnes CO2/tonne
Geomembrane (GM) 25,944
PE
Drainage from ICE 1.6a (polyethylene) = 1.6 tonnes CO2/tonne
44,000
Geocomposite (DGC) PE
Transport GM and
3,000 Assume 100 km and 1 truck for each product
DGC
Place Cover Soil 26,004 from ICE 1.6a (sand) = 0.005 tonnes CO2/tonne sand

© ASCE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017