-------
0,
D.
which includes only 12 inches of cover soil and no lateral drainage
layer, has the greatest potential for failure due to penetration or
freeze/thaw damage of the barrier layer. Alternative 4 provides the
greatest 10ng-teDn protection against failure.
Reduction of Toxicity, MJbility, or Volume of the Contaminants.
~ne of the alternatives utilize treatnent to reduce toxicity,
IOObility, or volume. However, alternatives 2, 3 and 4 utilize
containment to reduce the volume of leachate prc:x:iuced and to prevent
the IOObility of the contaminants contained within the refuse.
Containment will reduce contamination fran entering the ground water,
and thereby reduce the risk associated with consumption or contact with
the water.
E.
Short-TeDn Effectiveness. All cover systan alternatives will have
minimal potential impact on hmnan health because construction
activities will disturb only minimal volumes of in-place wastes if they
are found to be present i.rrrtediately adjacent to roadways. Scme
nuisance conditions, such as litter or odors, may occur during
excavation and redisposal of Sate wastes. The major impact on the
nearby residents will be substantially increased truck traffic required
to transport the large quantities of soil cClTlprising the cover systan
canponents. The cover systan will require 18 to 24 rronths to design
and construct, depending upon seasonal ~ather conditions. Al ternati ve
4 will probably require a slightly longer construction period than
Al ternati ves 2 and 3.
Workers may be exposed to air anissions of VOCs and rrethane during site
grading and placement of initial layers. However, all cover
alternatives share these activities. Air IOOnitoring will be necessary
and respiratory protection utilized if needed based upon the rronitoring
results.
F.
Implenentability. The equiptent, materials, and skilled workers needed
to construct the cover systan alternatives are readily available in
northem Minnesota. The plans and specifications for the alternative
cover systan are likely to attract construction bids fran local and
regional contractors. The manufacturers and suppliers of the synthetic
membrane material 3re likely to be canpanies operating nationally. .
G.
Cost. Al ternati ve 1 has minimal estimated construction costs. The
estimated construction costs for each of the remaining alternatives are
as follows: .
- Alternative
- Alternative
- Altemative
- Alternative
- Alternative
- Alternative
2A - $ 6,000,000 - $10,000,000
28 - $ 5,400,000 ~ $ 8,700,000
3A - $ 7,400,000 - $12,500,000
38 - $ 6,900,000 $11,200,000
4A - $10,300,000 - $17,300,000
48 - $10,800,000 - $18~200,000
T:'le estimated construction costs are sensitive to the unit costs of the
soils and/or SYnthetic membrane caTlprising the cover systan
-------
IX.
alternatives. The availability of the various soil types canprising
the cover systems cannot be detennined with resr:ect to quantity,
quality or w1.it cost until further detailed engineering investigations
are initiated.
The annual operation and maintenance costs for each cover systen
(Alternatives 2A .through 4B) are estimated as follows:
- Alternative 2A - $31,000
- Alternative 2B - $30,000
- Alternative 3A - $35,000
- Alternative 3B - $33,000
- Alternative 4A - $38,000
- Alternative 4B - $39,000
Detailed cost figures for each alternative are included in AttachIrent
3. .
H.
State Acceptance.
The State of Minnesota supports the selected renedy.
I.
Carmunity Acceptance. Since only two ccmrents ~re received at the
public meeting and during the ccmrent period, it is sanewhat difficult
to judge the carmunity's reaction to the proposed landfill cover. Both
ccmrents ~re received frem residents of the area and both supported
al ternati ves other than the recc:mnended al ternati ve. However, the lack'
of ccmrents frem the county, the township and other interested parties
may indicate that the recc:mnended alternative as a satisfactory one.
One ranaining issue which the township questioned but did not ccmrent
. upon -- channeling the surface runoff from the landfill -- will be
decided during ranedial design. Township concerns on this issue will
be considered during the design phase. .
SELECl'ED REMEDY
The selected remedy is Alternative 3 (Figure 5).
following major cCItlpOnents: " .
Al ternati ve 3 has the
A.
Canplete site fencing and posting to restrict access ~o the site.
Site grading to pr::;m:)te precipitation runoff and reduce infiltration. .
B.
C.
Gas control layer, lateral migration barrier, and rronitoring system.
D.
Site capping with a low permeability material and drainage layer which
meets state and federal solid waste landfill requirements, and which
minimizes leachate generation and prevents direct contact with waste
materials.
E.
Top cover of cover soil, top soil, and vegetation.
F.
Maintenance and annual insr:ection of: the landfill cover, and rronitoring
of ground water and landfill gas to determine effectiveness of above
measures. .
-------
PROPOSED F'INAL SURFACE. GOOD VEGETATION
VEGET A TI VE LA YER
TOPSOIL
0.5 FT.
COVER SOIL 1.0 F'T.
DRAINAGE lAYER
1.0 F'T.
BARRIER LAYER
LOW PERMEASILITY MATERIAL
(2x1 0-6 em/see)
OR FlEXIBlf: MEMBRANE
GAS CONTROL lAYER
2.0 FT.
0.5 FT.
1.0-15.0 F'T.
REFUSE'
0-20.0 F'T.
NATURAL SOil.
NOTE: THIS CROSS SECTION IS PER PROPOSED STATE SOLID WASTE RULES.
MINNESOTA RULES PART 70.35.2815. SUBPART 6. ITEM D.
. '0 [i
~
ALTERNATIVE COVER SYSTEM 3
KUMMER SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY.
W"LCOI..W PIRNIE. INC.
F1CURE 5
JULY 1988
-------
G.
Legal recording of deed restrictions designating the site as a
restricted use property.
This alternative provides the best balance am::>ng the nine criteria used by
the u.s. EPA to evaluate raneclial action alternatives. Alternative 3
contains ~ (2) variations of barrier layer materials. At the present
tinE, there is insufficient infonnation regarding the available quantity,
quality and cost of the materials canprising the barrier layer. The final
selection will be made during the early design stages of the project. At
that tinE, an evaluation will be conducted to detennine the cost and
availability of both barrier layer materials. One barrier layer material
will be eliminated frcm further consideration if it is found to be
cost-prohibitive. In addition, the lack of infonnation concerning the
potential settlement of the landfill also makes it impossible to evaluate
whether clay or a synthetic barrier is rrcre appropriate for the site.
Both variations of Alternative 3 use proven containment techniques and will
minimize future contaminant migration by reducing the volume of .
precipitation which percolates through the landfilled wastes. Alternative 3
was also selected because it canplies with the State of Minnesota's prolX'sed
rules for closure of a municipal landfill at a l~r cost than Alternative
4.
The effectiveness of the selected cover system in protecting ground water.
quality will be verified by a rrcnitoring ne~rk installed as part of the
ground water operable unit phase of \o,Urk.
STA'IUIORY DETERMINATIONS
x.
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Envirornnent
The remedy selected is based upon lX'tential future endange.rment to
public health, welfare and the environment. Ground water sampling
indicates reasonable evidence that substantial quantities of hazardous
. sUbstances and pollutants exist in the landfill waste mass. The
substantial threat of continued release of these'materials may present
an imninent and substantial danger J.o public health, Welfare and the
environment if the3e substances continue to be released.
The chosen alternative is protective of hUI1'aIl health and the
environment. The fencing, deed restrictions and capping all provide
protection frcm direct contact with contaminated materials. Capping of
the landfill also reduces the emissions of methane and VCCs and reduces
percolation of precipitation through the landfill and thus the.
migration of hazardous substances into ground water and surface water.
MJnitoring of the ground water and surface water under the. ground water -
operable unit will identify any failures of the containment system.
Once alerted to an elevated level of contaminants, additional rcr.edial
actions can be taken to abate any threat.
The selected alternative should not cause any unacceptable short-term
risks or cross-ITedia impacts to the environment because only minimal
movement of in-place wastes will be neCessary.
-------
B.
Attai.rnrent of ARARs
The selection by the State of Minnesota and the U.S. EPA of the
landfill cover and related activities for the Kunmer Sanitary Landfill
will comply with the following applicable or relevant and appropriate
state and federal solid waste landfill requirements:
1.
RCRA Subtitle D, 40 CPR 257, for closure of solid waste
facilities.
2.
Current Minnesota Rules pt. 7035.1700 Z, for closure of solid
waste landfills (AttachrlEnt 4).
3.
Proposed Minnesota Rules pt. 7035.2815, subp. 6, for closure of so
waste landfills (Attachment 5).
4.
Minnesota solid waste pe~t number SW-31 issued April 26, 1971,
to the owners/operators of the Kurrrrer Sanitary Landfill
(At tachrrEnt l).
C.
Cost-Effectiveness
TIle selected ratedy is prescribed by canpliance with applicable state
and federal solid waste landfill closure ARARs. Alternative 3 provides
greater protection against infiltration than Alternative 2 at a cost
substantially less than that of Alternative" 4. In addition, the use of
a drainage layer and additional cover soil in Alternative 3 will'
provide greater protection against freeze/thaw damage, erosion,
vegetative root damage, and burrowing animals than Alternative 2,
thereby requiring less maintenance and repair.
The proposed plan presents an estimated range of costs for construction
and annual operation and maintenance. The range of estimated costs
considers whether the cover materials are readily available in the
landfill vicinity. The final construction cost iis expected to fall
within the range of costs provided~
'-'
D.
Utilization of Per.ffianent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloqies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable
SARA mandates a preference for the selection of permanent rareclies that
campletely or probably produce a ".. .permanent and significant decrease
in the toxicity, rrobility or volume of the hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant."
SARA also specifies that the selected remedial action must use
".. .permment solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable." If
the selected remedial action is not appropriate for the pe~nence and
treatment preferences cited above, an explanation of why a raneclial
action not incorporating these features was selected is required.
-------
There is no known location of hazardous waste disposal at the KLUTlTEr
Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, the entire landfill volume,
approxirrately 1.3 million cubic yards, would require excavation and
raroval for the rared.ial technologies indicated below. These
technologies were screened and. eliminated from further developrent and
analysis as being ircq:>ractical for the reasons indicated.
1.
Raroval is cost-prohibitive for this site, and would adversely
affect the air quality and pose a risk to site worker health and
safety.
2.
Treatment (on-site and off-site) methods such as solidification,
biological, and chemical are inappropriate for mixed municipal
refuse. Incineration is cost-prohibitive.
3.
Off-site disposal would not achieve site air quality objectives
during excavation, would increase human exposure during
transportation, and would be cost-prohibitive.
4.
On-site disposal is ircq:>ractical because sufficient area is not
available for simultaneous excavation, waste staging, and RCRA
landfill const.J:uction. It is also cost-prohibitive.
The selected .L~IJ:UY, Alternative 3, represents the IIDSt appropriate
solution for this site. Based upon the infoDnation presented, the
State of Minnesota and the u. S . EPA believe the selected remedy will
protect ground water quality by reducing infiltration arid leachate
production. It provides the best balance aIIDng all nine evaluation
criteria, with the following being the IIDSt ircq:>ortant considerations
for the site:
1.
Initial rejection of 94 percent of precipitation occurring on the
landfill.
2.
Canpliance with state and federal ARARs for. solid waste landfill
closure. . ,
3.
. 1\
Availability '3f equipnent ~d fuaterials.
4.
Cost of construction, operation and maintenance.
5.
Acceptance by the State of Minnesota and the corrmunity.
-------
...Gi::NCY M5:MBERS
HO\l\'A":J A. ANDERSEN. 104.0.. CHA'R"AN.
pOCHI.nll
F. WAYNE PACKARD. VICII CHA'R"AN.
MINNEAPOLIS
JOHN R. BORC.IERT.
,"OI.DC:" VA'.I.C:'!'
MILTON J. FELLOWS.
WORTHIHGTON
OTEVE J. GAOLER. I-'.E..
aT. P'~UL
MACE V. HARRIS.
CI.OQUc:T
HOMER C. LUICK.
~.NHr;"'''OLJ8
MR6. R. C. (DOROTHY) NELSON.
DUI.UTH
ROBERT C. TUVEBCN.
"I.DE"T I.IEA
ATTACH~1ENT 1.
Grant J. Herritt
JOn" r. g.,gn_I(.,..,. . .E..
1::r.1.C:U11--£ DIRECTOR
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
717 DELAWARE STReET S.E.
(OAK AND DELAWARE STREET8 S.E.)
MINNEAPOLIS 55440
612.376.1320
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AIID OPERATION OF
SOLID rlASTE DISPOSAL SYSTUI
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Pursuant to authori7ation by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
and in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters
115 and 116, as amended, ar~ Agency regulations SW 1-11, p1an3 are
~pproved and a permit is herebyr,ranted to ~~. Charles K~~er, B~idji
for construction and operation of a solid waste disposal system L~
Section 32, T14,7N, R33W, Northern Township, Be1trami County subject to
the conditions given below.
The s;,,.-::.tem consists of a sanitary landfill within a 1i1nit.cd access arc.:.,
operation equipment and other facilities. The site consists of approY~-
mately 40 acres. The facilities and operatL'g procedures are furthe~
described in a permit application dated December 7, 1970, wit.h plans,
infq~ztional m?terial and additional material received throuGh April 9,
1971, all prepared Ul1de~ the direction of.Mr. Peter J. Meyer, P.~. Cass
Lake. Deve1op;1ent will be in accordance with the u.ltir.Jate land US~ p1a.n
"Ultimate Use: Agricultural" revised April 1, 1971 pr.eparcd under the
direction of Hr. Peter J. Heyer.
General Conditions
1. This permit shall not release the permittee from any liability C~
obligation im~o3ed by ~linncsota Statutes or local ordinances and shall
r,=main in force subject to all conditions and l.iI:1itc.tions now or here-
after im~osed u~,. law. The permit shall be :::ermissiva only and 3h"3.11 not
be construed as csto~ping or limiting any claks against th~ permittee,
its a~ents, cont~~ctors, or assigns, np~ as estopping o~.l~ting any
leBal claims of the St~te against the ~e~~ttee, its agents, con~r~ctors,.
or assigns, for damage to State propert7, or for any violation ~~ L~~
terms of thi~ permit. .
2. No assier~ent of this permit shall he effective until it is execut8d
in ~~iting ~nd signed by the parties the~eto and thereafter filed with
the Agency.
3. No major alterations or additions to the disposal system will be
made without the written consent of the Agency.
3 0 0 1 6 ,'~
~EE~---' ~\~
-------
4. The use of the disposal system shall be in accord with and limited
to the operation and/or disposal of waste materials or substances des-
cribed in the plans and/or permit application and associated ~~erial
on file with the Agency.
.
,
5. This permit is subject without public hearing to modification or
revocation, and may be suspended at any time for failure to comply with
the term~ =tated herein or the provisions of any other applicable reg-
ulations or standards of the Agency or its predecessors, and is issued
with the understanding that it does not estop subsequent establishment
of further requirements for disposal or operation at any time or insertion
of appropriate addition~l clauses herein at the discretion of the Agency
if it is considered necessary in order to prevent or reduce possible
pollution of the environment because of changed or unforeseen circ~stances.
6. The permittee or assigns sh~ll defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the State of ~linne~ota, its officers, agents and employees officially or
personally responsible, against any and all action~, claimes or demands
whatsoever which ~y arise from or on account of the issuance of this
permit, or the construction, maintenance or operation of any facility
hereunder. .
7. The permittee will notify the Agency when construction is completed,
and reports describing the tyPes and quantities of waste di~posaJ. at the
site shall be submitted to the Agency every month, together with other
informaticn of the operation o~ the disposal sy~tem.
8. The di$po~al sy=tem shall be operated at all ~es in accordance
with any applicablo regulations or standardS~~~ MinneAota POllution.
co~~r AgenCy:;w or hereafter adopted. /&~ \l,.., ~~--
~~ 0~Q 1J.,()~'rl1 . / Q . ~ i~V:LGA~'i
Floyd. Fdrsoerg, P.E. t¥ant J. Eerri~t//
Director ~ecutive Secret(:fy and Chief
Division of Solid Waste. Executive Officer
Permit No.
SI'T 31
Dated
April '6. 197L
..i
"
300.1 G \.,
-------
09,'29/88
82:,27
"IPCA
tIO.Ol)2
032
ATTACHMENT 2
KUMMER LANDFILL, NORTHERN TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY' STUDY
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This' community responsiveness summary has been developed to document community
involvement and concerns during the source control operable unit phase of the
. project, and to respond to public comments received during the public comment
. period. Table 1 in the Record of Decision is a summary of the community rela-
tions activities conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
since the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study was funded, under a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Prot.ection Agency (EPA). EPA
hereby adopts the MPCA responses for the purpose of Section 117 of CERCLA.
A. OVERVIEW
The recommended alternative for a landfill cover at the Kummer site was
announced to the community through an advertisement in the local newspaper and a
news release from the MPCA. These items were also mailed to persons on the'
Kummer site mailing list. The recommended alternat;ve is a landfill cover which
includes a 2 to 25 percent slope, a gas control layer, a barrier layer of either
two feet of clay or a 30-mil high density polyethylene membrane, a drainage
layer, cover so1l and vagetated topsoil.
Few comments were received on the Feasibility Study. Those which were received
did not totally support the MPCA's recommended alternative or the o~her alter-
natives evaluated. The agency's response to those comments ;s contained in a
later section of the responsivness summary.
This responsiveness summary contains the following sections:
. Background on Community Involvement
.
SUl1111ary of Comments Rece; ved and.- Agency Responses
.
Remaining Issues
;.
. ~
B.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Since the discovery of contaminated private wells in 1984, community interest ;n
the Kummer Landfill site has been high. . To date, however, the interest has pri-
marily centered on the well contamination and installation of the public water
supply system. Township officials and residents have continued to express
interest in ground water contamination and landfill closure issues, however,
because of the PdSt effects on the wells in the area east OT the landfill.
-------
- 2 -
The MPCA conducted the community relations activities for the Superfund project.
In November 1985. residents were provided with information on plans for the pro-
ject through a news release and public meeting. A second public meeting was
held and fact sheet provided in July 1986. following approval of the work plan
.and start of the field work. An updated fact sheet containing information on
the progress of the ground water investigation was mailed to persons on the
Northern Township mailing list in January 1988. The fact sheet also indicated
that the MPCAls consultant ~as going to proceed with the feasibility study while
continuing work on the investigation.
The MPCA announced a 21-day public comment period (September 3 - September 24,
1988) on the alternatives for the landfill cover through an advertisement in the
Bemidji newspaper and a news release. Copies of the advertisement and news
release were also mailed to persons on the mailing list: A public meeting was
held midway in the public comment period, on September 15, and fact sheets were
distributed at the meeting and made available through the township.
C.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
MPCA RESPONSES
Comments received during the public comment Deriod on the Source Control
FeasibilityStudy and Proposed Plan are summarized beloH:
Comment:
A Northern Township resident commented that the proposed alter-
na.tive is not as protective as alternative 4. and that since .the
cost of the proposed alternative was already high, the added
protection provided by alternative 4 was worth the additional
few million dollars. He also suggested placing blacktop over
the landfill instead, so that it could have a future use as a
parking lot. skating rink, etc. Finally. he suggested that the
community needs to know the actual effectiveness of the cover
alternative and requested the .MPCA to provide information on its
use and effectiveness elsewhere.
MPCA Response:
,
Although the proposed alternative ;s not as effective as alter-
native 4, in conjunction with~the public water supply for the
affected are! and probable future ground water cleanup actions,
it is the most appropriate and cost-effective alternative.
The MPCA had considered using asphalt for the barrier layer in
the cover system. However. further evaluation of this material
found that, as the landfill settles. the asphalt layer would
crack and would require constant maintenance in order to insure
the integrity of the barrier. Relative to long-term use of the
site. future use of the property must allow for maintaining
the integrity of the gas venting system. In addition. the added
weight placed on the site by development such as a parking lot
would cause additional cracks and result in further settling of
the landfill.
-------
- 3 -
The engineering technologies used in the cover system are proven
technologies used elsewhere in the country. The MPCA will pro-
vide examples to the Township Board on where such technologies
are used and how effective they are.
Comment:
A Bemidji resident expressed concern about continued con-
tamination from the wastes already in the landfill and suggested
removal of the wastes.
MPCA Response:
Originally, the MPCA evaluated excavation of the buried wastes.
However, this alternative was eliminated because of possible
high vapor levels and dangers to site workers and residents. from
excavating the site, and the very high cost of excavation and
treatment or disposal -- in the range of $260 million.
o.
REMAINING ISSUES
The MPCA was unable to specify which barrier layer for the cover -- clay or a
high density polyethylene membrane -- would be the final choice. This decision
\1ill be made during the early stages of remedial design, after the MPCA receives
more site-specific information on the availability and cost of both barrier
materials. The MPCA considers either barrier layer material equivalent and
appropriate for the cover as both have been designed to divert water from
entering the fill material and infiltrating through the buried wastes.
At the public meeting, the Northern Town5hip Board Chairman expressed interest
in ~here drainage water from the landfill would be channeled. This, too, will
be an issue determined during remedial design, and the MPCA will keep the
Township informed on all alternatives being considered for channeling the
drainage and will consider Township concerns in developing the design.
The Board Chairman also expressed interest in the potential, future ground water
pumpout system, and asked where the pumpout ~ater would go after treatmerlt.
This issue is not a part of the landfill cover feasibility study. However, the
MPCA will keec the Township Board informed on the additional remedial investiga-
tion and feasibility study for the ground wat~r as these studies' progress.
. - ~
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
COST SUMMARIES
-------
ITEI'
KU""ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNATI'JE 1
2~-Aug-aa
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
LAN~ AND SITE CEVELQF~EH1 ceSTS
ACCESS CONTROL. (FENCING)
ACCESS GAiES
ACCESS ROADS.
DI~ERSjaN CHANNELS
"
REIIEDIAL~CTIaH CONSTRUCTION COSTS
"OBILIZATIOHIDEMCBILIZATION
CLEARING AND SRUBBING
GRADE ~ ca"PACT SUBBASE (-)
SOIL FILL
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"PACrrOH
GAS CONTROL
GAS LAYER
SA~D (-)
EXCAVATIDN,HAULA6E AND
COIIPACTICN
PIPE 'Jnm
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING
BACKFILL ~ATERIAL
PIPING
SYNTHETIC "E"BRANE
GAS IIONITORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE "E~9RANE (30 /IlLS)
LOW PERIIEABILITY "ATERIAL (-)
HAULAGE, PLACE"ENT AND
CO"PACTION
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (-) .
EtCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
CO~ER SOILH
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"PACTION
REVEGETATION
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
PER/IITTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL 13%) :
ENGINEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (15:)
TOTAL
3000 LF 58.00 . : 524,000 ' : A
I
o EA 52,000.00. : 50 I : ~
,
° LF $10.00 I 50 I : ~
I I
I) LF 53.00 I $0 I , ,.
, I , I.
° LS 525,000.00 I 50 I : A
I I
I) ACRE I S1 ,000. 00 I 50 I : A.B,C
I I I
o CY 50.30 I 50 I : A,C
I ,
o CY 5-4.50 I 50 I : ~
I I
o CY 54.50 I 50 ' : A,B
I I
o EA $400. 00 I 50 I : ~,C
I I
I) CY 53.00 ' 50 I : B,C
I I
° CY $13.00 I 50 I : B,C
I I
o LF 55.00 I 50 I : B,C
I I
o SF to.45 I 50 I : B,C
I I
o EA 5750.00 . 50 I : A,C
I .
o SF SO ..1 5 I 50 ,. : D,E
I ,.,
o SF ,. 50..33 I 50 I : D,E
I I I
I
,
0 CY .~. $~OO I 50 I : A,F
I I
.-
o CY
o LF
o SF
$12.00 :
S2.50 :
50.15 :
50 :
50 :
50 :
: B,C
: A,C
: D,E
° CY
o ACRE:
S4.50 :
Sl, 000.00 :
SO :
50 :
: A,F
: A,B,C .
524,000 :
.- :
51 :
31 :
lOt. :
157. :
I .
I
$1 ,200 : 6
$720 : 6
S2,400 : G
53,bOO : 6
S31,920 :
-------
ITE~
KU""ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL ~EHSIBILrTY STUDY
ALTERNA T I'JE 1
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
QUANT IT! ES
: AMNT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
; SUBTOTAL
:7-~ug-a8
~XTEIjDED
JUBTOT AL .
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL C:STS
L~ND ~~D SITE ~EVE~OP~ERT COSTS
:CCESS CONTROL (FENCING)
~CCESS 2AiE5
~CCE5S ROADS
J:~ERSION CHANNELS
REME~rAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
~OBILIZATIGN/DEMOBILIZATrGN
CLEARING AND SRUBBING
GRACE & CQI!PACT SUBBASE (-)
SOIL FILL
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COI!PACTICN .
SAS CONTROL
. SAS LAYER
SAND H
EXCAVATION,HAULAGE AND
COI!PACTIGN
PIPE VENTS
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING
BACKFILL "ATERIAL
PIPING
SYNTHETIC ~E"BRANE
GAS /lONITORS
GEOiEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE IIEIIBRANE (30 /IllS)
LO~ PERIIEABILITY IIATERIAL i-I
HAULAGE, PLACEI!ENT AND
CO"PACTICN
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (-) .
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
lATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL 1-)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTICN
REVEGETATION
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALiTY ASSURANCE (5%)
PERIIITTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (3%) :
ENGINEERING 110%)
CONTiNGENCY 115%)
TOTAL
3000 LF
,) EA
OLF
o LF
I .
I
o LS
o ACRE:
o CY
o CV
, .
I
511.00 :
53,150.00 :-
$50.00 :
S6.50 :
550,000.00 :
$1,500.00 :
SO.49 :
$7.09 :
o CY $12.00 I
I
o EA ' S500.00 '
, ,
o CY $3.00 I
,
OCY $13.00 '
I
o LF $5.00 I
I
o SF $0.45 I
I
o EA $1 ,000.00 I
,
o SF SO.20 I
I
o SF SO.45 I
I
- ~
0 CY - 112.00
$33,000
$0 :ii<"'
.. so :
so :
50 :
SO :
SO :
SO :
SO :
SO :
so :
SO :
SO :
SO :
SO :
SO :
SO ;:
I
I
so :
° CY $21.00 I $0 I
I I
° LF S3.50 I SO .
I ,
o SF $0.20 I SO I
I I
o CY $10.00 I SO I
I I
o ACRE I $1,500.00 I 50 I
I I I
5%:
3%:
10% :
15% :
. ~. I
: ~
: C
: A
: A,B,C
: A,C
: A
I
. ,
, .
,
. I
I
: A,B
: A,C
: B,C
: B,C
: B,C
: a,c
: A,C
: D,E
: D,E
: A,F
I
"
: BfC
: A,C
: D,E
: A,F
: A,B,C
$33,000 :
Sl,bSO : G
5990 : G
53,300 : G
14,950 : 5
143,890 :
-------
KU""ER SANITARY lANDFIll
SOURCE CONTROL FE~SIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNATIYE 1
25-Aug-8B
ANNUAL OPERATION ~ND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTI~ATE
ITE!1
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED.
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITE ~AINTENANCE
~NNUAL INSPECTION 0 YR S560.00 I SO I : B,C,H
I ,
SITE ~OWIN6/REVE6ETATION I) ACRE I S300.00 I SO I : 8,C,H
I I I
ERQSION CONTROL/MAINTENANCE 0 ACRE I $225.00 I SO I : B,C,H
' I ,
GENERAL REPAiRS 0 ACRE I SO.OO I SO I : B,C,H
' I ,
~ETHANE ~ONITORIN6 ° LS S5,000.00 I SO 1 : ~PI
' ,
SUBTOTAL SO :
CONTINGENCY (15%) SO '
1
TOTAL SO :
~
-
.~
j
(/
-------
IrEII
KUIIIIER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNATIVE 2A
30-Aug-88
CAPITAL COST ESTIIIATE
QUANTITiES
: AIINi UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
L~ND ~ND SI;E DEVELDP~ENT COSTS
ACCESS CDNTROL (FENCING)
ACCESS SATES
ACCESS ROADS
DIVERSION CHANNELS
REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
IIOBILIZATION/DEIICBILIZATION
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
GRADE & COIIPACT SUBBASE (6')
SOIL FILL (2% SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTI ON
GAS CONTROL
GAS LAYER
SAND (6')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
PIPE VENTS
SAS BARRIER ( 10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING
BACKFILL IIATERIAL
PIPING
SYNTHETIC !lEIIBRAHE
GAS !lONITORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE !lEIIBRAHE (30 !IlLS)
LOW PER!lEABILITY !lATERIAL (24')
HAULAGE, PLACEIIENT
COIIPACTIOK
lATER~l DRAINAGE lAYER
SAND (-)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (12')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
REVEGETATION
INDIRECT CAPITAL ceSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
PERIIITTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (3%) :
ENGINEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (15%)
TOTAL
I
. ,
3000 IF 58.00 ' 524,000 ' : A
I ,
3 EA 52,000.00 ' $6,000 I .
I I , ,.,
1000 IF SIO. 00 I SIO, 000 I : A
I ,
5700 IF $3.00 I 517,100 ' : C
I I
1 LS $25,000.00 I $25,000 I : A
I ,
36 ACRE I $1,000.00 I $36,000 I : A,B,C
' , I
29000 C'f $0.30 ' $8,700 I : A,C
I I
625000 CY $4.50 I $2,812,500 I : A
I I
32500 CY 54.50 I 5146,250 ' : A,8
I I
40 EA $400.00 I $16,000 I : A,C
I I
6500 CY $3.00 I $19 , ~oo I : B,C
I I
6500 CY SI3.00 I $84,500 I : B,C
' ,
7000 LF $5.00 I $35,000 I : B,C
I ,
63800 SF $0.45 I 528,710 I : B,C
I I
15 EA 5750.00 I $11,250 ' : A,C
I I
o SF SO.15 I $0 I : D,E
I ,
o SF 50.33 I $0 I : D,E
' I
i,
. I
115000 CY 5~.00 ' 5690,000 I : A,F
I ,
,;
o CY $12.00 I $0 I : B,C
' I
o LF $2.50 I $0 I : A,C
I I
1570000 SF $0.15 I 5235,500 I : D,E
I I
I
.
,
- ,
58000 CY $4.50 I 5261,000 I : A,F
I ,
36 ACRE I SI ,000.00 I $36,000 I : A,B,C .
I I .
$4,503,010 :
I
I
5% : 5225,151 : G
3% : $135,090 : G
10% : $450,301 : G
15t.: I 5675,452 : G
I
I
I
55,989,003 :
-------
ITE~
KU""ER SAHITARY LAHDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNA TI 'v'E 2A
30-Auq-aa
CAPITAL COST ESTIIIATE
QUANTITIES
: ~"NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXiENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SGURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT C~PIT~L CJSTS
LAND AND SITE ~EVELDP"ENT COSTS
~CCE5~ CaHiROL (FENCING)
ACCESS SATES
~CCES5 ~~DS'
DIVERSION CHANNELS
.1
REIIEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTIQN COSTS
~OBILIZATION/DE"OBILIZATION
CLEARiNG AND GRUBBING
GRADE' COIIPACT SUBBASE (b8)
SOIL FILL (21 SLOPE)
€XC"V~TION, HAULAGE AND
CGI!PACTION
GAS CONTROL
GAS LAYER
SAND (b")
EXCAVATiON, HAULAGE AND
COIIP~eTION
PIPE VENTS
GAS BARRIER ( 10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHI~G
BACKFILL IIATERIAL
PIPiNG
SYNTHETIC IIEIIBRANE
GAS "ON liORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE "EIIBRANE (30 IIILS)
LOW PER~EABILITY IIATERIAL (248)
HAULAGE, PLACEIIENT
COIIPACTIOH
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (-)
EXCAVATIDN, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTIOH
LATERAL PIPE DRAIN~
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (128)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
REVE6ETATION
.:;
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
DUALITY ASSURANCE (51)
PEp.~ITTrN6, LICENSING AND LEGAL (37,) :
EN6INEERIN6 (101)
CONTI~SENCY (157.i
TOTAL
3000 LF $11. 00 I $33,000 ' I .
I I , ..
3 EA' $3,150.00 I $9,45tJ I I A
I I I
1000 LF I $5~.OO I $50,000 I : A
,., I I
5700 LF $6.50 I $37,050 I I ~
, I , t.
1 LS $50,000.00 I $50,000 I : A
I I
36 ACRE I $1 , 500. 00 I $54,000 I : A,B,C
I I I
29000 CY $0.49 ' $14,210 I : A,e
' I
,
,
b25000 CY S7 .09 I 54,431,250 ' : A
I I
I
, .
29000 ey Sl2.00 ' $348,000 ' : A.a
' ,
40 EA $500.00 I $20,000 I : A,C
I ,
b500 CY 53.00 I U 9,500 ' : a,c
I I
6500 CY U3.00 ' $84 I 500 I : B,C
, I
7000 LF $5.00 I 535,000 ' : B,C
I ,
63800 SF $0.45 I $29,710 ' : a,c
I I
15 EA Sl,OOO.OO ' Sl5,000 ' : A,C
I I
o SF $0.20 I $0 ' : D,E
' "
o SF $0.45 ' $0 I : D,E
' I
115000 CY .~ Sl~OO : S1, 390 ,000 I : A,F
I
o CY
o LF
1570000 SF
521.00 :
53.50 :
$0.20 :
50 :
50 :
5314,000 :
: B,C
: A,e
: D,E
58000 CY
36 ACRE:
UO.OO :
U,500.00 :
5580,000 :
554,000 :
: A,F
: A, B ,C '
57,557,670 :
.- I
I
51 :
31 :
10%, :
151 :
S377 ,884 : 6
522b,730 : 6
$155,767 : G
: . 51,133,051 : 6
"
I
SlO,051,701 :
-------
KU""ER SANITARY lANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 21\
30-~uq-88
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE
rrE~
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:'
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SI7E ~AINTENANCE . ~
ANNUAL rNSPECTIO~
SITE "ONIN6/RE~ESETATIOH
EROSION' COnTROL/"AINJEHANCE
SENE,Q4L REPAIRS
"ETHANE "ONITORIN6
1 YR $560.00. I $560 : B,C,H
I I
36 ACRE I $100.00 I $7,200 ' : 8,C,H
' I ,
36 ACRE I $225.00 I $9,100 I : B,C,H
I I ,
2500 ACRE I $2.60 I $6,500 I : 8,C,H
I I I
1 LS $5,000.00 I $5,000 I : 11PI
. I
$27,360 :
$4,104 I
I
$31,464 :
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY {lS!i
rOTAL
NOTE: THE PRESENT WORTH OF'THE TOTAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT 10% INTEREST IS APPROXI"ATELY $315,000.
-i
"
c,
-------
:TEII
KUII"ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNATIVE 2B
30-~ug-Ba
CAPITAL COST ESTIIIATE
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:
UNIi
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~IRECT CAPITAL CaSTS
~AND AND SiTE DEVELD?~ENT COSTS
ACCESS :.ONTROL (FENCING)
ACCESS sm:s
ACCESS ROADS
DIYERSION CHANNELS
.4
RE~EDIAL ACTION CCNSTRUCTION COSTS
~OBILIZATION!DE~OBILIZATION
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
GRADE & COIIPACT SUBBASE (b")
SOIL FILL (2% SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"P ACT! ON
GAS CDNTROL
GAS LAYER
SAND (0')
. EXCAVATION. HAULAGE AND
COI1PACTION
PIPE VENTS
GAS 8ARRIER ( 10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING
BACKFILL I1ATERIAL
PIPING
SYNTHETIC I1EIIBRANE
GAS r,ONITORS
GEOTEXTIlE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE ~EIISRANE (30 ~ILS)
LON PER~EABILITY IIATERIAL (24")
HAULAGE, PLACEIIENT
COIIPACTION
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (-)
EICAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CQIIPACTlO"
LATtRAL PIPE JRAINS
6EOTEITILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (12")
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
REVEGETATION
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
aUALITY ASSURANCE (5!)
PERI1ITTING, LICENSING AND LE6AL (31) :
EN6iNEERINS (10%)
CONTINGENCY (lS1)
TOTAL
3000 LF '8.00 I 524,000 : A
' ,
3 EA '2,000.00 ' '6,000 ' : A
' I
1000 LF 51 0.00 1 510,000 ' , ,
, , I ...
5700 LF $3.00 ' $17,100 I , ~
, I , ~
1 LS '25,000.00 ' '25,000 ' : A
1 ,
3b ACRE ' $1 ;000.00 I '3b,000 ' : A,B,C
' 1 ,
29000 CY '0.30 ' '8,700 ' : A,C
' ,
b25000 CY '4.50 " 2,812,500 ' : A
' ,
29000 CY ' H.50 ' $130,500 ' : A,8
. I I I
40 EA '400.00 I $16,000 I : A,C
I I
6500 CY '3.00 ' $19,500 I : B.C
I ,
6500 CY $13.00 I $84,500 ' : B,C
I I
7000 LF ' '5.00 I '35,000 ' : B,C
., I ,
63800 SF '0.45 I $28,710 I : B,C
' I
15 EA '750.00 ' $11,250 I : A,C
. ,
o SF '0.15 I SO I : D,E
I t>
1570000 SF '0.33 I S518,100 I : D~E
I I
, d
I
0 CY S~.oo I $0 I : A,F
- ' I
o CY $12.00 I $0 I : 8.,C
I I
o LF '2.50 I .0 ' : A,C
I ,
o SF '0.15 I $0 I : D,E
I I
58000 CY 14.50 I '261,000 I : A,F
I I
30 ACRE I 51,000.00 I $36,000 ' : A, B,C.
I I I
54,079,800 :
51 : $203,993 : G
31 : $122,396 : G
101 : 1407,986 : 6
. I 15% : ' $bll,979 : 6
I I
S5,42b,214 :
-------
Iml
KU""ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNATI'JE 2B
30-Aug-68
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
QUANTITIES
: A"HT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: 3GURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL 2CSTS
t~N&,~14D Sm'~IfELDPI!EM "(!!lSTS
AtiESS CGrtiROl CFt1ftCHi&)
A~5S-5ATES
ACGE5S RQACS
DrVE~SlC~ CHANNfLS
RE~EDIAL ACT!G~ CCNST~UCTION caSTS
'DBILIZATIGN/DE~OBILIZATrCN
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
GRADE & CO"PACT SUBBASE (b')
SOIL F:LL r:~ SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CQ~PACTi eN
GAS CONTROL
SA5 LAVER
SAND W)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"PACTION
PIPE '}ENTS
GAS BARRIER; 10 Fi ~EEF)
TRENCHING.
BACKFILL ~ATERiAl
PIPINS
SYNTHETIC "E"3RANE
GAS "GNITORS
6EOTEXT1LE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE "E"BRANE (30 "IlS)
LO~ PER"EA8ILITY ~ATERIAl (24')
HAULAGE, PL';CE~ENT
CO"PACTION .
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (-)
EXCAVATION, HAULA6E AND
CO"PACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
6EOTEXTILE (FILTER FA8RIC)
COVER SOIL (12')
EXCAVATICN, H~UL~GE ~ND
COI\?~CTION
RE'JE6ET A T I ON
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (57.)
PER"ITTING, LICENSING AND LE6AL (3%) :
EN6INEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (15~)
TOTAL
, .
I
3000 LF $11.00 ' $3.3,001) ' , A
I , ,
:HA SJ,150.00 ' ,9,450 ; , .,
, , "
1000 -If J~.OO I $50,000 A
' I ,
5700 LF $6.50 I $37,050 ' C
I ,
1 ,,. 550,000.00 ' $50,000 ' , A
~.J " ,
36 ACRE ' $1,500.00 ' $54,000 ' : A,B,C
' , ,
29000 CV SO.49 I $14,210 ' , A,C
' , I
625000 CY H.09 ' H,431,2~,0 I : A
' ,
29000 CY $12.00 ' 5348,000 I :A,8
I ,
40 EA 5500.00 ' 520,000 ' : A,C
; ,
6500 CY 53.00 ' 519, 500 I : B,C
I ,
6500 CY $13.00 ' $84,500 I : 8,C
I I
7000 LF 55.00 ' $35,000 I : B,C
' I
63800 SF $0.45 I 528,710 ' : 8,C
' I
15 EA $1,000.00 I $15,000 ' : A,C
' I
o SF 50.20 I 50 ' : D,E
I ,
1570000 SF 50.45 I $706,500 . : D,E
I ,
o CY .12.00 I .0 I : A,F
I .
.-
o CY '21.00 ' 50 I : B,C
I .
o lF 53.50 . 50 . : A,C
I .
o SF I $0.20 ' 50 I : D,E
- , I ,
58000 CY $1 0.00 I '580,000 I : A,F
I I
36 ACRE I 51,500.00 I 554,000 I : A,B,C
I I ,
$6,570,170 :
51 : 5328,509 : S
3% : $197,105 : 6
10% : 5657,017 : G
15% : I 5985,5:6 : G
I
58,738,326 :
-------
KU"~ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 2B
30-Aug-S8
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTI~HTE
IiDI
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTDTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: :~UR:E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITE ~AINTENANCE
ANNUAL !NSPECTION
SITE MOWING/REVEGETATION
c;'OSIDN CDNjRGL;~AINTE~ANCE
GENERAL REPAIRS
1
,.
,;.1"-.
. J.. s-.
, .
: B,C,H
: B,C.H
: 3,C,H
: B.C,H
"ETHANE "ONliORING
1 LS
55,000.00 :
55,000 :
: "PI
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (15Ii
525,8bO :
53,879 :
TOTAL
529,i39 :
NOTE: THE PRESENT WORTH OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND "AINTENANCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT 101 INTEREST 15 APPROXI"ATELY 5300,000.
-
)Ci
<>
-------
ml!
KU~~ER SANITARY LANDFiLL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE :A
3.)-Aug -98
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
QUANTITIES
MINT UN I T
UNIT
PRICE
SUBTOTAL
:~TENDEJ
: SOURCE
Sw8TOTAL .
I."". .,.--
I.. "'I~..i "'1'1&1
:!T: ~EiE~:P~ENT CGS73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j:iECi :~P!~Al :JSij
~~~~JJ CGNT~aL t~E~C~~6)
1\""'':'.:0:: ::"T..':'~
"'L...I._.. .~'.J
A ,.....~.-.. ""."."":"'"
"I.~C:=,J "-U"i/,J
JIVE~SlwN CHANNEL3
1E~E~I~l ~CTrON CCNSj;UCTiJN C8STS
~GBjL!~~TiON/DE~CB:L;ZATiON
CLEAR1N6 ~ND 8RUBB~N6
~RADE ~ CO~PAC~ SUBBASE (6'j
SOIL FiLL (=~ 3LCPE)
~~CA~ATICN, HAULAGE AND
CC/lPACTr :~
s;;: :C~iTRGl
5AS LAYER
SAND T ~
E~CAVATlaN. HAULAGE AND
CO~PHCT! 8N
~I?E :;ENTS
GAS 8ARRrER (10 ~T DEEP)
7:;ENCH;"a
9ACrFrLL ~ArE?:A.L
PIPiNG
3Y~THET!C ~E~BRANE
a~s ~QNITGRS
;~QTEIT;LE (FrLiE~ FA~RIC)
FLElr?LE ~E~BR~NE :30 ~rLS)
LDW ?ER~EA8ILITY ~ATEqIAL (24')
~:ULA6E, Pl~CE~ENj AND
CQI!PACTI ON
~AT~;AL ~RAI~A6E LAYER
SMNii 112')
EXCA~ATIDN~ HAULAGE AND
C~~PAeTI ON
L~T:~Al PI?E DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FIL:ER FABRIC)
CC~ER SOIL (13')
EI~~VijirCN, HAULAGE AND
eOI!PACTIGN
REVESET A rr ON
INDiRECT CAPIT~l CCSiS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
?ER~:T?;~GI LICENSiNG AND
E~6rNEER!N6 (10%)
CCNT:NGENCY (15%;
~ESAL (3%)
TCTAL
3000 LF 58.:jO 524,000 I A
, .,
3 EA 52,000.00 56,000 I .,
, H
:000 LF $10.00 $10,000 I A
5700 LF 53.00 $17,100 ' ~
, ..
, LS 525,000.00 525,000 ~
. I
36 ACRE $1 , 000.00 536,000 I A,B,e
I
29000 CY $0.30 58,700 I A,C
625000 CY 14.50 I 52,812,500 I A
I ,
29000 CY 14.50 $130,500 : A,a
40 EA 5400.00 $16,000 : A,C
b ~'oo CY 53.00 $19,500 : B,e
6500 CY 513.00 584,500 : S,C
7000 LF 55.00 $35,000 : 8,:
63800 SF 50.45 528,710 : 9,C
15 EA 5750.00 511,2~,0 : A,e
1570000 SF 50.15 5235,500 : O,E
0 SF 50.33 50 I : D,E
'
I
I
I
115000 CY j $690,000 : A,F
.S&.OO ~
.
58000 CY $12.00 5696,000 : a,e
10000 LF 52.50 525,000 : A,C
1570000 SF 50.15 5235,500 : D,E
87000 CY 54.50 S391,500 : A,F
36 ACRE Sl, 000.00 536,000 : A,B,C
55,574,2bO :
5% : S278,713 : 6
3%: $167,228 : 6
10% : 5557, ~26 : G
154. : S8?6,139 : 5
57,413,766 :
-------
;~~:1
KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CCNTRGL ;EASIBILITY ST0DY
ALTERNATIVE 3A
JUANTITIES
CAPITAL COST EST;~ATE
~ A/'INT
UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
:,i~ -~iJg -3a
EnE';~ED
SUBTOTAL
: SGIj;;CE
-----.------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------
jIRECT :;PITAL CaSTS
~~:~o A:ID 'S';TE' ~E'jE~J?~!H CCST'j
.~~E5S' CC~ \~w.:.I~t
:.c:::: ;~,~E3' -. . '2..'.
ACC~: ~C-mJ$- . i~.', "
~:~E~S::~ CHAN~ELS
;E~:Dr~L ~CT!CN C~NSjRUCTION COSTS
~OSILIZAT!C~!DE~OBILIZATIQN
CLEARING AND GRU88ING
GRADE ~ COMPACT SUB9ASE (6")
30IL FILL i2Z 3LCPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CG~?ACTICN
EAS ~QNrROL
GAS LAYER
SAND (0")
EXCAVATIQN~ HAULAGE AND
COMPACTION
?!PE VENTS
GAS BARRIER (10 ~T DEEP)
TRENCHING
B~C~FILL MATERIAL
.I
PIPING
SYNTHETIC ME~BRANE
GAS ~ONITORS .
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEtr~LE ~E~SRANE (30 "ILS)
LCN PER~EA9ILITY ~ArERiAL (24")
HAUL~GE, PLACE~ENT AND
CD"PACTlDN
LATE~AL DRAINAGE LAYER
5AND (12") ,
EXCAVATIDN, HAULAGE AND
CC~PACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GECTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (18")
EXCAVATICH, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTI~/I
REVE6EiATlON
"
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
PERIIITTiN6, LICENsrN6 AND LE5AL (3%) :
E~6INEERING (10~)
CONTINGENCY (15%)
TOTAL
,.
I
,.
,
, :
I
,.
1 LS
36 ACRE:
29000 CY
625000 CY
29000 CY
40 EA
6500 ~y
6500 C'(
7000 LF
63800 SF
15 EA
1570000 SF
° SF
1~5000 CY
,
58000 CY
100M L~
1570000 SF
87000 CY
36 ACRE:
56.50 :
550,000.00 :
51,500.00 i
50.49 :
550,000 :
554.000 :
$14,210 :
$7.09 : $4,431,250 :
, ,
, .,
': :.
,
I .
, "
: C
,
. ,
: A
: A,B,C
: A,C
I ,
I "
$12.00 I $348,000 I I A,S
' I ,
;~IOO. 00 I 520,000 ' I A,C
I I I
53.00 I S19, 500 I I B,C
I I I
$13.00 I $84,500 I , B,C
I , ,
$5.00 I 535,000 I I B,C
I I ,
50.45 I $28,710 ' , B,C
I I ,
$1,000.00 I U5, 000 I : A,e
I I
$0;20 I 1314,000 " I D,E
I , I
$0.45 I 50 I I D,E
I I I
I .,
. , "
'. SlJ.OO I 51, 3Bo ,000 I , A,F
I , I
521.00 : $1,218,000 :
$3.50: $35,000:
$0.20 :. 5314,000 :
$10.00 :
$1,500.00 :
5870,000 :
554,000 :
5% :
31 :
10% :
151 :
: B,C
: A,C
: D,E
: A,F
: A, 9 J C '
59,414,670 :
5470,734 : G
$2B2,440 : S
5941,467 : G
$1,412,201 : G
$12,521,511 :
-------
KUM~ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 3A
30-Aug-Sa
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTI~ATE
ITE~
QUANTITIES
: AMHT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED.
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITE ~ArNTEN~CE
ANNUAl INSPrt:TI~H' ,
SITE ~O~rN6/REVEGETATION
EROSION CONrROL!MAIHTENANCE
GENERAL REPAiRS
METHANE ~ONITORING
1 YR S~,aQ I " .s 5bG I : B,C,H
' '.
30 ACRE ' 5200.00 I 57,2Q0 I : B,C,H
I I I
30 ACRE " 522~.OO I 58,100 I : B.C,H
I I ,
2500 ACRE ' 53.85 I $9,025 I : B,C,H
I I I
,
I
1 LS 55,000.00. : 55,000 I : MPI
I
530,485 :
S4,573 I
I
535,058 :
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (15%)
TOTAL
NOTE: THE PRESENT WORTH OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND KAINTENANCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT 10% INTEREST IS APPROXIMATELY 5355,000. '
~
-------
0,
r7~!"
KU""ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 3B
QUANT IT! ES
: A"NT UNIT:
CAPITAL COST ESTi"ATE
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
30-Aug-S8
n7~NDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOU~CE
~!REC; C;P:TAL C~ST~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~NO ~~D 3~TE ~EIELGFMENj COST3
AC~E;S CONTROL \tENC!NG)
~C:ESS '::A7Ej
ACCE33 RCA~S
GIVERS::N CHANNELS
R~"E~!AL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
~OBrLiZATiON/GE~OBILiZATION
2LEARINS AND SRUBBING .
":RADE ~ :CMPACT SUBBASE (0')
SOIL FiLL (2! SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COI!PACT!ON
aAS CONTROL
6AS LAyER
SAND (b')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CCI!PACTION
PIPE :JPHS
J
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHIIjG
BACKFILL ~ATERIAL
PIPIIJG
SYNTHETIC ~EI!SRANE
SAS "ON !TORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE ~EI!BRANE (30 "ILS)
LOll PERIIEABILIT'f I!ATERiAL (-)
HAULAGE, PlACE~ENT AND
COI!PACTION .
LATERAL DRAINAgE LAYER
5;'IID (12')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"PACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GECTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
ceVErt SOIL Ila')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO"P ACT! ON
REVEGETATION
IF
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
. PER~ITTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (3%) :
ENgiNEERING (101)
CONTINGENCY (151)
TCTAL
3000 LF
3 EA
:000 LF
57;):) LF
1 lS
3b ACRE:
29000 CY
625000 CY
29000 CY
40 EA
6500 CV
6500 CY
7000 LF
63BOO SF
15 EA
o SF
1570000 SF
o CY
58.00 ;
$2,000.00 ~
UO.OO . ; .
$3.00 :
$25,000.1)0 :
U,.OOO.oo :
$0.30 :
$24,000 :
16,000 :
UO,OOO :
U7,100 :
$25,000 :
136,000 :
58,700 :
54.50 : $2,812,500 :
54.50 :
5400.00 :
13.00 :
$13.00 :
$5.00 :
$0.45 :
$750.00 :
$0.15 :
50.33 :
"= 5~.00 :
$130,500 :
$16,000 :
$19 , 500 :
$84,500 :
$35,000 :
528,710 :
U1,250 :
$0 :.
$518,100 :
50 :
: .~
: A
: ~
, ,.
, L.
, .,
I "
: A,B,C
: A,C
: A
,.
I
: A,B
: A,C
: 3,C
: B,e
: 9,C
: B,C
: A,C
: D,E
: D,E
.1
"
: A,F
59000 CY U2.00 I $b9b, 000 I : B,C
I I
10000 LF $2.50 I $25,000 I : A,C
I t
1570000 SF $0.15 I $235,500 I : D,E
I I
97000 CY 54.50 1 $391,500 I : A,F
I I
3b ACRE I 51,000.00 t 53b,OOO t : A, B,C .
I I I
55,166,960 :
I
I
51 : 5259,343 : 6
31 : $155,006 : G
10%. : 551b,b8b : G
151 : t $775,029 : G.
1
5b,871,924 :
-------
!TEll
KUII"ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY SiUDY
ALTERNATIVE 3B
30-Aug-38
CAPITAL CaST ESTIMATE
QUANT ITIES
: AIINT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL.
: SDURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D!RECT CAPITAL COSTS
LAND AND SITE DEVELCP~ENT COSTS
ACCESS CGNTROL iFENCrU6)
!'\~(',....."" "A~~!""
11......,:;; c,.,,~\:
ACCESS ROADS
CrVERSICN CHANNELS
RE~ED~rlL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
"OSILIZATIOHIDEMOBILIZATION
~LEAR!N6 AND 6rtUBBIN6
GRADE ~ CO"PACT SUBBASE (o')
SOIL FILL (2% SLOPE)
EX~AVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTI ON
6AS :OHTROL
BAS LAYER
SAND (6") .
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CC"PACTIOH
?IPE VENTS
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
T:::ENCHIN6
BACKFILL ~ATERIAL
PIPING.
SYNTHET!C ~E~BRANE
GAS "ONITORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIELE MEMBRANE (30 MILS)
l~. PER"EABILITY MATERIAL (-)
H~UL~GE, PLACE~ENT AND
COIIPACTIOH
L~TERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
S~1.ID (12")
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COI!PACTI ON
L~TERAL PIPE DRAINS
6EGTEXTIlE (F!~TER FABRIC)
ceVER SDIL i18')
EICAVATION, HAUL~6E AND
CGIIPACTI CN
REVE5ETATIOH
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
PERlliTTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (3%)
ENGI~EERrN6 (104/
CCNTINGENCY (157.)
TOTAL
3000 LF U 1. 00 I 5.33, ;)00 I ,
I , "
3 EA 53,150.00 I 59, 4~IO I I ,
I I I "
1000 LF 550.00 I 550,000 I , A
I I I
5700 LF 5b.50 I 537,050 I I C
I I I
. '''' 550,000.00 I 550,000 I I A
. \.J I I ,
3b ACRE ' $1 , 500.00 I 5~,4, 000 I I A,B,C
I I I I
29000 CY 50.49 I $14,210 I I A,C
' I I
625000 CY 57.09 I 54,431,250 I : A
I I
29000 CY $12.00 I 5348,000 ' : A,S
I I
40 EA 5500.00 I 520,000 I : A,C
I I
b500 CY 53.00 I $19, 500 I : B,C
' I
6500 CY $13.00 I 584,500 ' : a,e
I I
7000 LF 55.00 I 535,000 I : a,c
I I
63800 SF 50.45 I 528,710 I : B,C
' I
15 EA S1, 000.00 ' $15,000 I : A,C
I I
o SF 50;20 I 50 ' : D,E
' I
1570000 SF 50.45 I H06,500 I : D,E
I I
"
I
0 CY . $11.00 I SO I : A,F
' I
..
"
58000 CY 521. 00 : $1,218,000 I : B,C
I
10000 LF 53.50 ' 135,000 I : A,C
' I
1570000 SF 50.20 ' 5314,000 ' : D,E
I ,
87000 CY $10.00 I 5870,000 ' : A,F
I I
36 ACRE I S1, 500.00 I 554,000 I : A,B,C
I I ,
58,427,170 :
5% : 5421,3~19 : 6
3% : 5252,815 : 6
10% : 5842,717 : G
15"': I $1,264,076: G
I
511 , 208,136 :
-------
c
KU~~ER SANITARY lANDFill
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Al TERNATIVE . 39
jO-Aug-aa
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTI~ATE
IrE/!
QUANT ITI ES
: A~NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SliBTOTAl
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: ~GURCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
SHE I!Ii LNTENANCE. .
A~~U~l INSPECTiON
SITE ~GWrNGiREVEGE:ATION
ERCSi~~ CONTROL/MAiNTENANCE
SENEiiAl REPAIRS
!!ETHANE !!ONITGRiNG
1 VA S560.00 $560 0 I 3!C.H
' I
0 36 ACRE I 5200.00 I 57,200 I I 3,C.:1
I I I .
,
I 36 ACRE I .425.00 I 58,100 I I B,C,ii
. . , 0 .
2500 ACRE I 53.25 I 58, 125 I I a,c,ii
. I I I
1 lS 55,000.00 I 55,000 I I ItPI
o I I
528,985 I
I
54,348 I
0
S33,3~3 I
I
SUBTVTAl
CuNTiN6ENCY (151)
TaT Al
NOTE: THE PRESENT WORTH OF THE TOT~L OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT .101 iNTEREST IS APPROXIMATELY 5335,000.
-
.~
d
(j
-------
liE"
KU~"ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AL TERNA II VE 4A
CAPITAL COST ESTI"ATE
QUANT IT! ES
; A~NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
30-Auq-38
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
LA~D 4ND S1TE D£VELDP~ENT C:STS
.:tCCESS CGriiROl (FEN<: I NG)
ACCESS SATES
ACCESS ROADS
~!~ERSIOH CHANNELS
,
RE~EDIAL ACTION C8NSTRUCTION COSTS
"CBILIZATION/DE~OBIL!ZAT!ON
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
GRADE & CO~PACT SUBBASE (b')
SOIL FILL (3: SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, MAUL AGE AND
CO~PACTION
GAS SONTROL
GAS LAYER
SAND (6')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO~PACTION
PIPE VENTS
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING
BACKFILL "ATERIAL
PIPIHG
SYNTHETIC "E"BRANE
GAS /lONITORS
6EOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE IIE"BRANE (30 "ILS)
LO~ PERIIEABILIiY ~ATERIAl (12")
HAULAGE, PLACE~ENT AND
CO"PACTIOH
LATE~AL DRAIHAGE LAYER
SAND (12"'
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO~PACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAIHS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC'
COVER SOIL (48"'
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CO~PACTI ON
REVEGETATION
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (5%)
PER"ITTING, LICENSING HND LEGAL (3%) :
ENGiNEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (15%)
TOTAL
3000 LF $8.00 ' $24,000 I
I ,
3 EA $2,000.00 ' S6~OOO I
I ,
1000 LF $-11> . 00 ' $10,000 '
, ,
5700 LF $3.00 ' $17,100 '
I ,
. ,
I
1 LS '25,000.00 ' $25,000 '
, I
36 ACRE ' $1 , 000.00 ' $36,000 I
, I I
29000 CY $0.30 I '8,700 '
I ,
925000 CY
I
,
29000 CY
40 EA
6500 CY
6500 CY
7000 LF
03800 SF
15 EA
1570000 SF
1570000 SF
58000 CY
'4.50 : $4,162,500 :
I .,
, H
: A
: A
, r
, w
: A
: A,B,C
: A,C
: A
14.50 I S130,500 I : A,S
I I
1400.00 I $16,000 ' : A,C
I ,
$3.00 ' $19,500 I : 9,C
' I
S13.00 ,. '84,500 I : B,C
I I
$5.00 I $35,000 ' : S,C
I ,
$0.45 I $28,710 ' : S,C
' ,
$750.00 ' Sl1,250 I : A,C
I I
$0.15 ' $235,500 ' : D,E
I ,
'0.33 I. '518,100 ' : D,E
I ,
"
,
s'6 . 00 I S3.48,000 I : A,F
I ,
58000 CY
10000 LF
1570000 SF
$12.00 :
'2.50 :
'0.15 :
'696,000 :
'25,000 :
'235,500 :
230000 CY
36 ACRE:
$4.50 : $1,035,000 :
Sl, 000.00: '36,000:
5% :
3% :
10% :
15% :
u
'"
: S,C
: A,C
: D,E
: A,F
: A,B,C.
S7,743,860 :
'387,193 : G
'232,316 : G
'774,386 : 6
St,161,579 : 6
S10,299,334 :
-------
v
KU""ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 4A
30-Aug-S8
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
ITElI
QUANT IT! ES
: A"NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
LAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
ACC£SS CONTROL (FENCING) 3000 LF 511.00 ' 533,000 ' : A
, I
ACCESS GATES 3 EA 53,150.00 I 59,450 ' : A
' ,
~CCESS ROADS 1000 LF 550.00 ' 550,000 I : A
'
DiVERSION CHANNELS SiOO LF 56.50 537,050 I : C
I I
RE~EDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
"OBILIZATION/DE~OBILIIATION 1 LS 550,000.00 I 550,000 I : A
I '
CLEARING AND GRUBBING 36 ACRE I $l,500.00 ' 554,000 I : A,B,C
I , ,
GRADE & CO"PACT SUBBASE (0') 29000 CY 50.49 ' $14,210 ' : A,C
' I
SOIL FiLL (3: SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAUL~6E AND
CO"PACTION 925000 CY 51 .09 : 16,558,250 I I .
, I ..
GAS CONTROL
GAS LAYER ,
, .
SAND (b')
EXCAYATION, HAULAGE AND
CC"PACTI ON 29000 CY $12.00 ' 5348,000 ' : A,B
' I
PIPE VENTS 40 EA 1500.00 ' $20,000 I : A,C
I ,
GAS BARRIER (10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHING 6500 CY 13.00 I $19 ,500 I ~ a,e
I ,
BACKFILL ftATERIAL 6500 CY 513.00 I 584,500 I : 8,C
I I
PIPING 7000 LF 15.00 ' 535,000 ' : S,C
I ,
SYNTHETIC "E"BRANE 63800 SF 50.45 ' 528,710 I : 8,C
' ,
GAS "CNITORS 15 EA '1,000.00 ' 515,000 ' : A,C
I I
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC) 1570000 SF 50.20 ' 5314,000 .. : D,E
I "
FLEXIBLE "E~BRANE i30 "ILS) 1570000 SF 50.45 ' 5706,500 I : D,E
' I
LON FERftEABILITY "ATERIAL (12') ,
;'
HAULAGE, PLACE~ENT AND
CO/!PACTION 5BOOO CY .~ 5Q'00 I 1696,000 I : A,F
' ,
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
J SAND i 12')
v EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CG/!PACTIOII 5BOOO CY 521.00 : Sl ,21B,000 I : B,C
I
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS 10000 LF 53.50 I 135,000 ' : A,C
I I
6EOTEXTIlE (FILTER FABRIC) 1570000 SF 50.20 I 1314,000 I : D,E
I ,
COVER SOIL (48')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CD/!FACTION 230000 CY $10.00 : 52,300,000 I : A,F
,
REVEGETATION 36 ACRE ' $1,500.00 ' 154,000 I : A,B,C.
I , ,
$12,994,170 :
INDIRECT CAPITAL ceSTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE (51) 51 : 5649,709 : G
PER"ITiING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (31) , 3% : $389,B25 : G
I
ENGINEERING (10%) 10: : $1 , 299 I 417 : G
CONTINGENCY 115%) 15% : ' $1,9H,126 : G
,
TOTAL $17,292,246 :
-------
KU""ER 3ANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 4A
liE"
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTI"ATE
30-Aug-83
QUANTITIES
: A"NT UNIT:
~NIT
PRICE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
1 YR $560.00 I $560 I : S,C,n
' I
36 ACRE I $200.00 I $7,200 I : B,:,H
I I .
36 ACRE I $225.00 I $8 ~ 100 . : 8.C,H
' I I
\
2500 ACRE I $4.80 I $12.000 I : B,C,H
I I I
1 LS 55,000.00 ' $5,000 I : ~PI
I I
$32,860 :
S4,929 I
I
537,789 :
SITE ~AINTcN~NCE
~NNUAL INSPECTIDN
SITE ~OW:N6iREVEGETAT!GN
~ROS:G~ CQNTRGLj~~;NTENANCE
GE~ERAL REPAIRS
"ETHANE MONITORING
SUBTOTAL
CuNTIN6ENCY (151)
TOT~L
SOTE: THE PRESENT ~CRTH OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND "AINTENANCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT 101 INTEREST IS APPROXI"ATElY 5380,000.
~
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
-------
~
!TEl!
XU~I!ER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL rEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATI'JE 48
~O-Aug-8a
CAPITAL COST ESTI~ATE
QUANT !TIES
: AI!NT UNIT:
UNli
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXT£SDED
SUBTOTAL'
: :GURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT CAPITAL COST3
L~ND AND SITr DtvELQ?~EHT COSTS
~S CONTROL (FE?tCINS,)
. ~CtESS GATE)"
ACCESS ROADS
DIVERSION CHANNELS
.!
REI!EDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
~OBILIZATIONiDE~OBILIZATION
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
GRADE' COMPACT SU8BASE (6')
SOIL FiLL (3Z 3LOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE ~ND
COI!PACTI ON
GAS CONTROL
GAS LAYER
SAND W)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE ~ND
COI!PACTION
PIPE 'JENTS
GAS BARRIER {10 FT DEEP)
TRENCHIN6
BACKFILL ~ATERIAL
PIPING
SYNTHETiC I!EMBRANE
GAS !'IONITORS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE I!EI!BRANE (30 MILS)
LCW PERI!EABILITY I!ATERIAL (24')
HAULAGE, PLACEI!ENT AND
CQIIPACTION
LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND (12')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COI!PACTIOII
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (48')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COI!PACTI ON
REVEGETATION
v
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
DUALITY ASSURANCE (5%i
PERMITTING, LICENS:~c ~ND LEGAL (37.) :
ENGINEERiNG (10~)
CONTiNGENCY (1~%1
TOTAL
3000 LF $9.00 -.. 524,000 I : A
,'-- I
! EA n,ooo.OO J $6.000 I I ~
I , I
1000 LF 510.00 ' $10,000 ' , A
I I I
5700 LF $3.00 I $17,100 ' : C
' I
1 LS $25,000.00 ' $25,000 I A
' , I
36 ~CRE ' $1,000.00 ' $36,000 ' , A,B,C
' J , ,
29000 CY $0.30 ' 58,700 ' , A,C
' I ,
925000 CY $4.50 ' $4,162,500 ' , .
, J , "
, I
,
29000 CY $4.50 ' $130,500 ' : A,B
I I
40 EA $400.00 I $16,000 J : ~,C
' I
6500 CY 53.00 ' $19,500 I : S,C
' ,
6500 CY $13.00 ' $84,500 I : B,C
' ,
7000 LF 55.00 ' 535,000 I : a.c
' J
63800 SF $0.45 I $28,710 ' : S,C
' I
15 EA $750.00 ' $11,250 I : A,C
J ,
1570000 SF $0.15 I 5235,500 ' : D,E
' "
1570000 SF 50.33 ' 5518,100 I : D,E
' I
115000 CY S~OO ' S690,000 ' : A,F
~ I ,
58000 tY
10000 LF
1570000 SF
512.00 : 5696,000 :
$2.50 : - 525,000 :
SO.15 : 5235,500 :
: S,C
: A,C
: D,E
230000 CY
36 ACRE:
$4.50 : 51,035,000 :
$1,000.00: $36,000:
: A,F
: A, B ,C .
58,085,860 :
5% :
3% :
10% :
15% :
$404,293 : G
$242,57b : G
5808,586 : 5
: . 51,212,879 : G
I
, .
510,754,194 :
-------
mil
KUIIIIER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 48
30-Hl.Ig-88
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
QUMHITIES
: All NT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SOURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
L~ND ~~D SITE :E';'ELOPIIENT COSTS
ACCESS CONTROL (FENCING)
;,CCESS bATES
ACCESS ROAns
DIVERSION CHANNELS
REIIEDIAl ACTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
~OFILIZATIONiDEMOBILIZATION
CLEARiNG AND SRUBBIN6
GRACE & COIIPACT SUBBASE (6')
SOIL FILL (31 SLOPE)
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTI ON
GAS CONTROL
bAS LAYER
SAND (0')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
CCIIPACTION
P!?E VENTS
bAS BARRIER (10 FT DEE?)
TRENCHiNG
BACKFILL IIATERiAL
PIP:NG
SYNTHETIC IIEII8RANE
GAS liON !TORS
SEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
FLEXIBLE I~E"8RANE (30 IIILS)
lOW PERIIEABILITY IIATERIAL (24')
HAULAGE, PLACEIIENT AND
CO~PACTIOH
LATER~L DRAINA6E LAYER
5A/iD (12')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTION
LATERAL PIPE DRAINS
GEOTEXTILE (FILTER FABRIC)
COVER SOIL (4a')
EXCAVATION, HAULAGE AND
COIIPACTIDN
REVEGETATrON
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
DUALITY ASSURAUCE (~%)
PERMliTING, LICENSING AND LEGAL (3~) :
ENGINEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (157.)
TOTAL
,
, I
3000 LF $11.00 I 533,000 I : A
I I
3 EA $3,150.00 ' $9,450 I I "
I I . ..
1000 lF $50.00 I $50,000 ' : *,
I I
5700 LF 56.50 I 537,050 t I ,.
I I I I-
1 LS 550,000.00 ' 550,000 I : A
I
30 ACRE I $1,500.00 I 554,000 I : A,B,C
I I ,
29000 CY 50.49 1 $14,210 I : A,e
I I
925000 CY 57.09 I 56,558,250 t : A
' .
29000 CY $12.00 I 5348,000 I : A,e
t t
40 EA 5500.00 t 520,000 I : A,C
I I
6500 CY 53.00 ' $1 9,500 I : S,C
I I
0500 CY $13.00 ' 584,500 I : 9,C
I I
7000 LF 55.00 ' 535,000 I : B,C
' I
63800 SF 50.45 ' 528,710 I : a,c
I I
15 EA $1 ,000.00 I $15,000 I : A,C
I ,
1570000 SF 50;20 I 5314,000 ' : D,E
. I
1570000 SF $0.45 I 5706,500 I : D,E
I I
"
I
115000 CY '. S1~.OO : S1,3~O,OOO t : A,F
,
58000 CY
10000 LF
1570000 SF
521.00 : 51,218,000 :
53.50: 535,000:
50.20 : 5314,000 :
: 9,C
: A,C
: D,E
230000 CY
36 ACRE:
510.00 : 52,300,000 :
51,500.00: 554,000:
: A,F
: A, 8 ,C '
$13,678,170 :
.' I
,
5% :
n:
5683,909 : G
1410,345 : G
Sl,3b7,817 : G
52,051,720 : G
10% :
15% :
I
"
$18,111,966 :
-------
\.
KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATI'JE 4B
30-:'ug-98
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
QUANTITIES
: AMNT UNIT:
UNIT
PRICE
: SUBTOTAL
EXTENDED
SUBTOTAL
: SQURCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SiTE MAINTENANCE
ANNUAL iNSPECTION
SITE ~OWrN6iREvESETATION
EROSION CCNTRGL;~AIHTENAHCE
GENERAL REPAIRS
METHANE MONITORING
, YR $560.00 I $560 I , S~C,H
l , " ,
36 ACRE I $200.00 I $7~200 I I B,e,H
I I I ,
36 ACRE I $225.00 I $8,100 I I S,C,H
' I I I
2500 ACRE I $5.20 I $13,000 I : B,C,H
I , ,
, LS $5,1)00.00 ' $5,000 I I ~PI
1 I I ,
53.3,860 I
I
55,079 I
,
$38,939 I
I
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (15I)
TOTAL
HaTE: THE PRESENT WORTH OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND ~AIHTENAHCE COSTS
OVER 50 YEARS AT 10% INTEREST IS APPROXIMATELY 5390,000.
.~
o
\/
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
5339
Current Minnesota Rules
for Solid Waste Disposal
SOLID WASTE RULES 7035.1800
X. When disposed of at a sanitary landfill. certain dcmolition and.
construction type wastcs may be: disposcd of In a separate arca. as spccificd by
thc dircctor.
Y. The permitlec shall properly complcte thc agency operational report
form and submit.jt monthl,y to the agency. whether or not the permiued landfill
is yel co.~u:u.~r ",'hcth~ or not it is in operation.
. Z. WilMn one month after final terminalion of a site. or a major part
lhereof. the area shall be covered with at least two feet of compacted earth
P1Jterial. graded to a minimum two percent slope to promote surface water
runoff without excessive erosion. .
The finished surface of the filled area shall be covered and maintained with
adequate ...lOp soil and seeded to providc suitable vegetation immc:dlately uron
completion. or immediately in thl: spring on areas terminated during winter
conditions. If necessary. seeded slopes sball be covered with straw or slmtlar
material to prevent erosion.
Prior to completion of a saniL.1ry landfill site. the agency shall be notified in
order that a site investi!;atior. may be conducted by the agency staff before earth
P10ving equipment is removed from the property. .
. Aller completion of a sanitary landfill site. a detailed description. including
a plat. shall be: recorded with the county register of deeds. The description shall
include general types and location of wastes. depth of fill. and other information
of :nterest to future land owners.
If the completed site is to be: cultivated. the integrity of the finished surface
shall not be disturbed by agricultural cultivation activities. If cultivated. a
sufficient depth of cover material to allow cultivation and to support vegclZ.tion
shall be main tainec-.
StarutOl')' Autboriry:
MS s 116.07 subd 4
7035.1800 PE~\HT APPLICATIO~ AND REQUIRED PLANS FOR
LANDFILLS. . . .
Plans. including a p::mit applic.ation. report. and drzwin!;s shall be pr::pared
by ~ r::gistered engin::::r of MinnesoL.'!.. Thr::e complete s::ts of the plans shall be
submitt::o to the agency. Tne sub~itted .plans shall include the- folJo\"'ing:
A. A comple:led permit zpplication fo~.j
B. An cngineering teporl including:- . ...
(1) General informalion:
(2} Site analysis inc.1ucing ::onsideration of each item in put
7035.1600 along with dOlL.'!. a::c suppiem:ntary reportS. includi1'1g soil boring dz.ta
and 2. hydrc;:olog.i: study. Attention to this requirement must inc\uo:
consideratior. of surfac:: features. undert;
-------
I.
':
.....
~~~
-------
t
r
I
f
A TT ACHr~ENT 5
Proposed Minnesota Rules for Solid Waste Disposal
Proposed Rules
~
F
t,
,
limits for individual suhstances under items E, F. and H. The additive carcinugenicity or toxicity mu,( be computed u~ing the apf .1
given in "Guidelines for the Heahh Ri,k A"essment of Chemical Mi\tures:' Feduu/ R('~isler: Volume 51. pa~es 34014-34025,
September 24, 191:16. \\-'here quantifil:ation using this approach is feasibk. the commissioner may require respon,e actiom if (he
sum tota! risk of consuming the water over a lifetime would e'tI:eed eilher 2.5 additional I:uses of \:;lIIl:er in a population uf 1.000,000
persons or lor noncarcinogens. 25 percenl of the al:ceptable cuncentr:UlUn fur long-term consumpllCln.
Subp. 5. Design requirements. The design requiremenb for a mixed municipal solid waste land disposal facility are as follol.l.s:
A. The owner or operator must develop an engineering report for the site. The report must include specificalions for site
preparation. The report shall be submiued ~'ith the final permit application required under purt 700 1.3300. These spe:cifications as
they relate to pha.se developm<:nI of the facilit~ must he established in the engineering report. Site preparations include \:Iearing and
grubbing for disposal areas and building locations. topsoil stripping and sturage. cover'maleria! eXl:avalion. other e~ca\'ations, berm
conslruction. draina!;e control structures, leachate collection and treatment system, ground water moniroring system. gas monitonng
and collel:tJon system. entrance a!1d access roads. screening. fenl:ing, and other special design features.
B. The O'A'ncr or operator must develop the site in phases. Each phase must contain individual cells thai wi!: provide for
filling in a manner to achieve final waste elevations as rapidly as possible. The phases must be designed and conslructed [(I minimize
moisture Infiltration into the fill areas while maintaining slable siupes and appropriate operaling cunditions. The: 01.1. ne:r ur opera lor
must consider seasunal phase~ in order to accommodute the differences bctween wet and dry and warm and culd weather operations.
The owner or operalor mu~[ bring each pha.se 10 the final wastel:ontours, as shown un the ultimate site Je:velopment plan. and close
the phase according to the approved facili!) closure plan.
e. Any new fill area al a land dispo,allacility must he lo(:ated allcast 200 feel from the neJrest propcrt~ line:. unJess orherwise
approved by the cummi~sioner ba~..:d on eXI~ling filling pro\:edures, e:.,isling sile S!ructures. the tacllity dt:~lgn. cumpliance bound-
arie!'. and existing land restrictions.
D. The owner or operalur musl divert SuT1;ll'e water dr.tinage anJund and away from the site uperating area. A drainage C0n1roJ
system, induding change, in thc site ropo~r.Jphy. dil(.'hes. berms. sedimentalion ponds. culverts. energ~ breaks. and ero~ion control
measures. must take intu con~Kkration al kasl Ihe following ti:a(ure,:
( I) lhe expected linal COnlours for lhe silt: and the planncd dramage pattern:
(2) the drainage paltern of Ihe surrounding area and the possihle effects on and hy the re:gional watershed:
(31 the need for temporary structures a, filling pmgn:,~e~ at Ihc sile:
(~) the base of each fill area and the t(lp \)f each !if! graded OIl a minimum two pcrcent slope: .lOd
(5) the arca's ten-year. 24.hour rainfall
E. The owner or operator musl design and lIlainlain slopes and drainageways to prevent erosion. particularl~ of lincr and
final cover materials. Slupes greater than 200 feel long must include diversion drainagewa~, unless the cummissiuner appro\'es a
greater distance based on sedimentalion run-off calculalions. propose:J design ieatures andsedimenlalion cOnlrol de\ il'C~. Where
water runs off top slopes Onl\) steeper sidl' slopes, the owner or operator must evaluate the need fur drainage"'ays arounJ the perimeter
of the top slope and numes or drop strul:tures 10 prc\ent erusion of lhe .:over. Drainageways must includc energy break, and concrete
or rip rap reinfurcement necessary to prevent t"n.'sion.
F. The owner or operator must provide a scdiment scltling pond if nan-off would other".ise carry excessi\'e sedimenl ,)ff [he
facility properl): ~ mmmissioner may n:quire JI1onitorint:0f \'c a minimum rhree perl'ent and a ma.,imum 20 perl'ent slope: unless the: cummis-
sioner approves other contours based on existing site tupograph~'. de:.ign plan" and uperating conditiuns.
H. The facility design must include:
( I ) a cuver sy~tem in accordance with subpart 11:
(2) a liner system in accordance wilh suhpall i:
(3) a leachate collection and treatment system in al:l'urdance wilh subpart 9:
(4) a water monitoring s)'s!em in aCl'ordanl:c with subpart IU: and
(5) a gas moniluring and I:ollel'tiun syslC/11 in aCl:ordanl:l' wilh suhpurl I J
commissioner based on the 10':;1Iiun. wastel:haral:teristics, and sile l'hara\:(crislil"s.
unless del"rmined 10 bl' unni:~'I.'''ar~ hy (he
Suhp. 6. Intermittent, intermediate. and final ('uwr s\"St~m, Thc owner or uperator of a mixed munil:ipal sl,lid \\a~le IanJ
disposal facililY mu,t design and /11aintaln a lw..er ~~,ll'l11 'l'ilpahk of nunimiling infillratiun of pro:l'ipil;i,iIJ" inl,' thl.' fill
PAGE 1926
STATE REGISTER, Monday 7 March 1988 .
(CITE 12 S.R.1926)
-------
Proposed Rules
preventing ~urface wate:r ponding on fill area~. controlhng ga~ movement. prcventing ero~ioJl of ~urface and ~ide ~Iupe:s. reducing
wind eT0~ion and wind blown liller. minimizing the creation and movement of du~t. retaining slope stability. reducmg effects of
freeze-thaw and other weather conditions. maintaining vegetative growth while minimiling roOt penctration of the: low-permeability
cover layer. and discouraging wctor and burro\\ ing animal intrusion into the: site. A complete coyer system mu~t consist of inter-
mille:nt. inlermedi:lle. and fin.al coyer~ as outlined in item~ A tu E.
A. The owner or operator mu~t place an intermiuent cover upon all expo,ed solid waste in accordance with the approved
operation and maintenance manual for the site. The owner or operator shall submit to the commi~sioner for approval a proposed
cover system that addresses the: frequency and depth of placement and the matenal to be use:d as cover. The frequency of placement
may he no Jess than once per week. The cover depth musl be ~ufficient to cO\'e:r the waste completely and mu~1 he at least six inches
if soil or similar material is used. The l'ommissiont."r. in arrrovint: the proposed c,wer system. must consider the characteristics of
the proposed cover material. the ,'haractcristics nf the solid waste. the kaching pote:nllal of the solid waste. the design and operation
of" the facility. and the potential for nuisance conditions if other than Jai1y .:over is proposed.
. . ,
B. The owner or operator must place intermediate cover on all filled surfaces of the facility where no additional solid waste
will be deposiled within 30 da~ s. Thc interme:diate ccwer must consist of cl'mpal.'ted material of sufficient depth. at least 12 inches
if soil or similar matenal is use:d. 10 cover thc wasle completel~. and gradcd tn prc\'ent surface. water ponding.
C. The owner or orerah.>r of an existing mtxe:u municipal ~oliJ wa~le land disposal facilit)' mUst comply with the final cover
requirements of subitems( 1110 (~) if. within IS months after the efie:cti\e dak of parts 70.35.2525 10 7035.2HI5. waste ~ill no
longer be recei\.cd and the facility \\'ill oe: clos.:d. -
(I) The final cove:r ~yslem must he compatihle with the end us.: for the site.
(2) The final cover sy~lem must be graded to prevent ~urfal.'e water ronding and' mu~t have a minimum slope of [Wo
percent anJ a ma.\lmum ~I\'r.: 00 gr~ater than 25 per.:enl.
(3) The fmal I.'over s~st':l11 mu~t consi~t of a barrier laycr at leOist 2~ int'hes thick of materiab having a permeability not
greater than 2 '( I 0.. centime:fer~ pl:r ~ecom.l overlain by 12 inche:s of material of which at least six inche~ is top~oil capable of
susrainin~ a vegetative cover. A barrier con~isling of synthetic; mat~riilb ill leaq 30: I 000 of an inch thid; ma} be u~ed in place of
.he barrier layer described ahove.
(4) The vegetative cover must consist of ,hallow-rooled perennial gra~s<:s or other suitable ve:getation that will not penetrate
the barrier layer.
D. The owner or operator of a new mixeJ municipal soliJ wa~tc land dispt'~31 facilit~ ,1r an exi~tin? facility or portions
thereof that will close or reach final permitted wastc eh:\ations more than I X months afrer the eft~cti\'e date \)f parts 7035,2525 [0
7035.2815 must comply with the requirements of subitem~ (II to (9).
(I ) Th~ tinal cover system must oc comp:ltiole with the end u~.: for thc site:.
(2) Th~ tinal cover system must be de~igncd and con~truCled to contain or reject at le;Jst 90 pe:rcent of rhe precipitation
falling on the system.
(3) A final cover system comprised of soils or amended. soils mU.~t consist of at kast three layer~: a barrit.:r layer. adrainage
layer. and a. top layer. The barrier layer must be al lea~t 2~ inch~~ thick if it consi~ts of soib or amended soils. The drainage layer
must be at least six inche~ thit.:k. The top layer mu~t be at least 18 inche:s thick. of which atleas\ six inche:s is topsoil. and of sufficient
depth to contain the vegetative roots and have an available water-holding capacity to promote vcgetati\e: growth.
(4) The barrier layer must have a m~ximum permeability_no geater than 2 x 10-<> centimet~rs per second.
(5) A synthetic memorane may be used as the barrier layer. The membrane must be at least 30' 1000 of an inch thick and
meel the physical property standards for the material type de\'elored hy the N;Hional Sanitation Foundation and re:produced in (he:
United States Environmental Protection Agency Manual. "Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Faciliti~s". 5\\'-870. \1Jrch
1983. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati. Ohio.
(6) The layer of topsoil must be capable of sustaining vegetative cover con~isting of ~hall\)w-rooted perennial gr3sse~ or
other suitable vegetarion that will not penetrate the barrier layer.
(7) In designing the drainage for the final cover system. the owner or operator must consider the need for drainage ditches.
KEY: PROPOSED RULES SECTION - Underlining indicales addltion~ to existing rule language, ~ 9tt+S indicale
deletions from existing rule language. If a proposed rule i~ totally new, it is designated "all new maleri;Ji." ADOPTED
RULES SECTION - Underlining indicates additions to propo~ed' rule language. ~ ett+S indicate deletions from
proposed rule language.
,.
(CITE 12 S.R. 1927)
STATE REGISTER, Monday 7 March 1988
PAGE 1927
-------
Proposed Rules
r
r
I
I
I:
[1.
I:
t:
t
pipes. and collection areas to prevent erosion and e:l:cessive sediment movement off site, The owner or operator must abo co(":~~','
design,and construction techniques needed to maintain the drainage layer in place on the barrier layer.
(8) The barrier layer must he placed upon a buffer material covering the waste to protect the barrier layer from damage,
(9) The owner or operator must grade the final cover system to achieve a minimum three percent and a mibihty stud~ on minimizing leachate generation. controlling leachate movement. and on treating ground water and
surface water pollution: an evaluation of long-term monitoring: and an appropriate adjustment to the financial instruments in place
for the facility. .
The liner installed at a mixed municipal solid waste land disposal facility must comply with the requirements of items ~
The' lined portion of the disposal area must be separated from any existing fill area by low-permeability material to [he t,. ..It
practicable. be designed to collect the additional water movement from the old fill area 10 the new fill area. and prevent movement
of water from the new till area to the old till area.
A. The liner system in combination with the cover system must achieve an overall site efficiency of 98.5 percent collection
or rejection of the precipitation that falls on the disposal area and minimize the amount of leachate leaving the fill site [0 the soil
and ground water system below the site.
B. The liner system must be compatible with the waste and leachate.
C. The liner must maintain its integrity for the operating life of the facility and the postclosure care period.
D. The liner system must consist of at least the following:
(I) a smooth. stable subgrade for placement of the barrier liner by means of the placement of protective materia'i over the
existing subgrade. the removal of abrasive objects. organic matter. and vegetation in the subgrade. and regrading:
. . ,
(2) a barrier liner capable of containing leachate generated at the facility and surface water that has come in contact with
waste: and
(J) a drainage layer above the barrier liner to rapidly convey surface: water and leachate from the fill area. and 10 protect,
the barrier layer from puncture or other disturbances that might disrupt the integrilY of the barrier liner.
E. A natural soil barrier liner must be at least four feet thick. A synthetic membrane must be at least 60/ I 000 of an inch
thick for an unreinforced membrane or 3011000 of an inch thick for a reinforced membrane, A synthetic membrane must meet the
specifications of the National Sanitation Foundation. Standard Number 4. Flexible Membrane Liners. November 1983. Ann Arbor.
Michigan. The synthetic membrane must be placed over a natural soil barrier liner al least tWO feet thick. The drainage layer must
consist of at least 12 inches of suitable soil material or an equivalent synthetic material.
F. The barrier liner must have a permeability no greatcr than 1 x 10' centimeters per second. The drainage layer must have
a permeability of I x 10 1 centimeters per second or grealer throughout.
G. The base of the liner must be graded to a minimum two percent and a maximum len percent slope and the side slopes
must be no steeper than 25 percent.
r
f
~
I
r
\
f
I
t
,
Ir,
"
PAGE 1928
STATE REGISTER, Monday 7 March 1988
(CITE 12 S.R.1!J,o)
-------