
Geosynthetic Institute
Introduction to Geosynthetic
Certification Institute-Inspectors Certification Program for “Geosynthetic and Compacted Clay Liner
Materials”
![]()
(GCI-ICP)
The
Geosynthetic Certification Institute-Inspectors Certification Program (GCI-ICP)
for “Geosynthetics Materials and/or
Compacted Clay Liners” is administered by the Geosynthetic Certification
Institute which is a branch of the Geosynthetic Institute. It is located
in Folsom, Pennsylvania about four-miles from the Philadelphia International
Airport. Dr. George R. Koerner (Program Director), and Dr. Robert M.
Koerner (Oversight) and Ms. Jamie Koerner (Administrator) are the principals
involved.
The
certification program to be described herein focuses on CQA but can (and
should) pertain to CQC as well. Two
different programs are offered; one is focused on geosynthetic materials and
the other on compacted clay liners. A
candidate can take both programs if desired.
The
following flow chart describes the interactions of MQA/CQA and MQC/CQC as they
apply to a particular project so as to produce an appropriate level of quality.

Figure 1 - Organizational Structure
of Quality Control and Quality Assurance Activities
*Note
that this certification program focuses on both geosynthetic and compacted clay
liner construction quality assurance (CQA) and only indirectly on manufacturing
quality assurance (MQA).
The Value of CQA
The electrical leak location survey
(ELLS) method was developed in 1984 and was slow to initially be implemented
but for the past 10-years provided a wealth of data on leaks of geomembranes
placed in the field; both uncovered, and after soil covering. For uncovered geomembranes the water puddle
technique (ASTM D6747 and D7002) is used and for soil covered geomembrane the
dipole technique (ASTM D6747 and D7007) is used. The following photographs (compliments of A.
Rollin) show each technique being used.

(a) Water Puddle Technique (b) Dipole Technique
Figure 2 - Electric Leak Location
Survey Techniques
In a paper by Forget, Jacquelin and Rollin (2005) a comparison of exposed
geomembrane leakage without CQA and with CQA has been generated. Figure 3 shows the incidence of holes for
these two situations. The result is that
an average of 22 leaks/ha (9.0 leaks/acre) occurred in 14 projects without CQA;
whereas an average of 4 leaks/ha (1.6 leaks acre) occurred in 43 projects with
CQA.


Figure 3 - Exposed Geomembrane
Leakage Without and With CQA
The situation for covered geomembranes
[usually with 300 mm (or 12 in.) of sand or gravel] is even more dramatic. The result from 42-projects is that an
average of 16 leaks/ha (6.5 leaks/acre) occurred without CQA; whereas an
average of only 0.5 leaks/ha (0.20 leaks/acre) occurred with CQA.
This reference, and
others, indicate
that there is a direct relationship between leak occurrence and the presence or
absence of a credible CQA program. Of
course, the tacit assumption is that a “credible” CQA program is being offered
and it is this program being described that will hopefully fill this need.