) f -J

CDM CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE IN ~-~~~liS fiibull~I ampMa~COtiWIIIIIt

lkltlon lroluuclluHftl 02101 tiiH2middot5151

June 12 1985

US EPA Region I J F Kennedy Building Boston HA 02203

ATTN Mr Richard Leighton

Document Control No 182-WPl-EP-BEAC-1

Capping Alernattves Charles GeorSt landfill

Dear Mr Leighton

As you are aware Cabullp Dresser I McKH Inc (COM) hu been twaluatfng various alttrntthts for an bulltlptrvtousbull cap over the Charles George landft11 Tht purpost of thts lttttr ts to advtse you of our ftndtngs and to asstst you fn fofIUhttng tht Charles George Record of Dtc1ston (ROO)

CCJt hts evaluated four dffftrtnt types of caps as ltstld below

1 Nltural clay 2 Btntonttt chysot1 bullhturt 3 Fly ISh 4 Synthtt tc 1t ntn

Ourtng our evaluatfon w established SOM crtttrfa or pottnthl concerns Wtltcll we felt tach capptng syste~~ had to address These concerns art s-artzed as follows

1 Due to the inherent settlMent of the landrf11ed 111tertal it ts fllperatht that any proposed syst111 should bt able to accOMOdate both dtfl ect ton and loca 1t zed shear wtthout c0111pr0111ts t ng its tntegrfty

2 The capping systt~~~ must be impervtous wtth 10middot 7 cbullsec used as a penr~~abi 1 f ty goa 1

3 Both landffll gas collec tion and inffltratfon drainage IIIUSt be aCCOillriOdated

4 31 s f de slopes must be attainable

I )

USEPA Region I -2shy CAMP DRESSER amp MciltEIMr Richard leighton June 12 1985

S The vehicular traffic needed to transport the capping matertaT(s) to te site should be minimized as much as possible

6 The final capping system must be tnert to attack by landfill off-gases

Natura I Clay

The information concerning natural clay is surm14rfzed tn my letter to you

~~~o~~ez ~~1 I~1~~~ 1~~middot~~ s~~ct~~~~ ~=tw~~bulln7t~~~~~11 ment That was the Mutrte pit tn Exeter NH We have received conf11cttng test data con~erntng thts clay Test results sent to COM by Char-les Mutrfe

~t~L 10t ~~ 1 ~~r ~~2sect ~~nr~~~~i~~0 realtsttc

In conflict wtth th1s tnformatton 1s an approval by the us Anwy Corps of

~~i~~~middot~=~~f ~~f~=~~nht~rc~~t~n~~e Superfund Stte It ts our optnton th1t ghen the bullspongybull n1ture of the lindftlltd uterill tt would be dtfftcu~t 1f not 111PQn1ble to 1tt1tn

r~c~~C~t g~st~e=ufbull~o~r~middot~~O~~~ ty9~1or It n1tur1l cl1ys to 1tt1tn

To s~rtze the n1tur11 cl1y hu the followtng postthe points

1 C1n 1chteve 10middot5 emsec Pltlllibt1ttles

Z Pluttclty w111 allow for SOM 1110vMent of cap without cricking

3 Rel1thely unlffected by water or landfill gases

The negative aspects of clay Include

1 I1111penttabll1ty ts directly related to compaction attained Therefore spongy subbase and excessive moisture In natural cllywill deter fr0111 final permeability

Z Cons idera bl e quality control required to assure consistency In clay

3 Proposed t wo Z) feet thick c lay layer over ent ire site would requi re approximately 10000 to 11000 truckloads of cl aymaterial

4 Ins ta lled clay cos t (based on a two feet layer ) Is estimated to be 18 00 s y

) USEPA Region I -3shyHr Richard Leighton CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE

June 12 1985

Based on the above points 1t is recommended that natural clay not be used at the Charles George stte

BentoniteSoil Mixture

Information concerning bentonite ls also included tn my May 29 1985 letter The bentonite sources attest that a betonftesoll mixture can be ~~~~~middot~~-So rs~ permeabil ity less than 10- emsec and -w111 likely ]gt 0

~

1 oro Jlgt~ ~Jlgt Zlgt~ ~~rThe loghttcs of tmplernenttng this alternative would include shipping the

bentonite to the site in either 100 lb bags or 1 - 1-1Z ton sacks Tht ~~OVgt ~zbentonite Is then mixed fn a pug m111 llffth c0111110n f111 which must also be

transported to site) to form an tmpenneable material The mixture h lgt ~~ ~ooplacid on tht landfill using a paving machine and COftiPICted to optimum ltCOdtnstty 0 ~ mrrCtraquo4s analysis of 1 bentonite soil cap shows that bentonites strength 111y O lgt lgt

also be fts weakness Because of bentonites low penHabtlfty 1 relatively ozz thtn cap c1n be tnstllled ln other hndffll closures 1 four (4) Inch

000 0~

thick layer wu tnst111ed to forw the t~~pervtous layer Thts relatively r thtn l1yer would 1ppear to be very susceptible to landfill stttlnt r Bentonite suppliers clltbull that due to the pluttctty of the bulltxture the cap can wtthstlnd larger degrHs of deflect ton without cracking But tn 1 landfill localized uttlfIHnt or shear fltlure ts -ore caonpllct A four tnch thtck sotl cap would not be 1ble to bridge 1ny votds cre1hd by shear flflures Therefore very low tntthl peNIIeabtltttes could ghe Wly to fatlurts tn the capped surface Of the four cap alttrnathes considered tt 1s felt that the bentontttsotl cap would requtre the greatest 1111tnttnanct to usure the systMs tntegrtty

Also the bentonite fonws an hnpervtous mhture by swelling when wet to ftll the votd space between so11 particles Jntufthely thts ftlltng of the votd space should also dtcreue tht coefftctent of frtctton between the btntontttsotl layer and the vegetative support sotf layer Thertfore the chances of slope fat lure on 31 slopes would appt~r to be greater once tht bentonite ts added

Therefore bned on the rtsks Involved t n fnstalltng a bentonite cap along with a relatfvely htgh tn place cost of S7 40s y ft ts ftlt that bentonite 1s not appropriate for the Char les George site

Fly Ash

The third optton conside red was the tnHallatton of a fly ash cap The proposed cap would be approximately four (4) feet thick and would have

) USEPA Region 1 -4- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

penneablllttes In the range of 3Jt05 emsec Permeability tests have shOwn that due to the absorption of water by the fly ash Infiltrating water will never travel all the way through the ash column given a surface slope wh ich al lows for surface dra inage

The negative points of using fly ash are as follows

1 Very dusty material to work with therefore material requires large quantities of water during Installation to ktep dust domiddot

2 Ove~aterlng or excessive rainfall creates very greasy working conditions

3 Slope protection w111 be needed on 31 slopes during Installation to minimize erosion due to rains

4 Tht four- fett thick layer of fly ash would requt rt 19000-22000 truckloads of ash to be brought to the stu

The postthe upects of ustng fly ash include

1 Vt rtu11ly no t nft ltrlt ton through the tlpervtous llyer

) 2 Very tnexpenshe to tnstlll at 1pproxtmaUly $100sy wtth a 4 foot depth

3 Ablt to m1tntatn 31 stde slopes

4 Excessive thickness of matertal llfOuld allow for SOM shur fatlures to occur without comprOIRtstng the tnttgrtty of the c1p

The use of fly ash ts 1 viable opt ton and if the larger qu1nttty of truck required could be tolerated then tt would be acceptable at the Charles George stte

Synthet lc U ner

Although synthetic li ners have a relatively short track record It llfOUld appear that thet r use ts very appropriate for the cap at the Ch1rles George stte Several negative pot nts associated wit h synthetics wil l be mini11ized due to tts app lication as a cap Should a pinhole dev elop or a leaky seam oc cur then the small hydraulic head above the cap woul d not force lftUCh water through the hoI e Also btl ng used as a cap the I 1 ner llfOUl d not be subj ected to poss I bIt degradat ton due to 1 each ate contact Although the liner would be t n contact with volatile org1ntc laden landfill gas the lower concentrat ions t n the gas should not affect the i ntegrity of the ltner

) CAMP DRESSER amp McKEEUSEPA Region I ~5-

Hr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

The one significant ~eakness in a synthetic liner ca pping system 1s the smoothntss of the 11ner making It difficult to support a 31 sloped soil layer liner manufacturers c la im 3 1 s lopes can be successfully maintained but such slopes appear t o be at the upper bound of att a i nment This wea kness ca n be mitigated by the use of geotexttles tn co njunction ~o~1th the liner as will be detailed later

Synthetics strong points Include

1 VIrtual tmpermeabilt ty given good factory qua 1 ty contra I and good seamt ng technl que

2 Approximately 20 truckloads of synthetic mattrlal will covtr the entire stu

3 The liner Installation would not be u dependent on good weather u the soil e~p al ttrnat tves

4 A 40 bulltl thick high density polyethylene ltner can be Insulted for approxtbullattly $450sy

Based on the abOve analysis It 1s COMs rc011111ndatton that 1 synthetic liner be installed as tne tmpervtous cap over the landfill

Gn and Inftltratton Oratnap Laxer

As stated in the evaluation criteria the capping systbull -st accaoctate both landfill gas and tnftltratton collection IgtJe to the inherent 1111Ptmeabi ltttes associated vtth any Impervious cap 1111ttrtal the impervious layer must be undvlched betwen tvo collection layers The drainage layer above the Impervious layer must be able to effecttvely drain any i nfiltration reaching the Impervious layer (liner) so that slope stabtltty can be maintained and the hydraulic head pushing the Infiltration through the 11 ner 1s kept to 1 mt nlm11111

The collection layer belov the liner must allow the-landfill off-gases to migrate to vented collection points so that gas pressures do not butld up sufficiently to force the gn to ex i t uncontrolled from the site through the perimeter toe drains

There are several op t ions ava i lable In constructing effective collection systems The a l ternat f ves eva 1 uated Inc 1 ude natura 1 materia 1s such as sand and crushed st one and synthet t cs whI ch t nc I ude non-woven geotut 11 es drainage nets and a prefabricated drainage s tructure

All of the dra inagecollection media eva luated have an estimated Installed cos t of Sl40 to S5 00 per square ya rd except for Htradratn wh ich Is a prefabricated dra inage structure The unit cost for this material ts Sll 50s y Ht radraf n was e 1 fmt nated f rom cons 1 de rat 1on as bet ng non-cost effec tive a long wi th being susceptable to attack landfill gas

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

I )

USEPA Region I -2shy CAMP DRESSER amp MciltEIMr Richard leighton June 12 1985

S The vehicular traffic needed to transport the capping matertaT(s) to te site should be minimized as much as possible

6 The final capping system must be tnert to attack by landfill off-gases

Natura I Clay

The information concerning natural clay is surm14rfzed tn my letter to you

~~~o~~ez ~~1 I~1~~~ 1~~middot~~ s~~ct~~~~ ~=tw~~bulln7t~~~~~11 ment That was the Mutrte pit tn Exeter NH We have received conf11cttng test data con~erntng thts clay Test results sent to COM by Char-les Mutrfe

~t~L 10t ~~ 1 ~~r ~~2sect ~~nr~~~~i~~0 realtsttc

In conflict wtth th1s tnformatton 1s an approval by the us Anwy Corps of

~~i~~~middot~=~~f ~~f~=~~nht~rc~~t~n~~e Superfund Stte It ts our optnton th1t ghen the bullspongybull n1ture of the lindftlltd uterill tt would be dtfftcu~t 1f not 111PQn1ble to 1tt1tn

r~c~~C~t g~st~e=ufbull~o~r~middot~~O~~~ ty9~1or It n1tur1l cl1ys to 1tt1tn

To s~rtze the n1tur11 cl1y hu the followtng postthe points

1 C1n 1chteve 10middot5 emsec Pltlllibt1ttles

Z Pluttclty w111 allow for SOM 1110vMent of cap without cricking

3 Rel1thely unlffected by water or landfill gases

The negative aspects of clay Include

1 I1111penttabll1ty ts directly related to compaction attained Therefore spongy subbase and excessive moisture In natural cllywill deter fr0111 final permeability

Z Cons idera bl e quality control required to assure consistency In clay

3 Proposed t wo Z) feet thick c lay layer over ent ire site would requi re approximately 10000 to 11000 truckloads of cl aymaterial

4 Ins ta lled clay cos t (based on a two feet layer ) Is estimated to be 18 00 s y

) USEPA Region I -3shyHr Richard Leighton CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE

June 12 1985

Based on the above points 1t is recommended that natural clay not be used at the Charles George stte

BentoniteSoil Mixture

Information concerning bentonite ls also included tn my May 29 1985 letter The bentonite sources attest that a betonftesoll mixture can be ~~~~~middot~~-So rs~ permeabil ity less than 10- emsec and -w111 likely ]gt 0

~

1 oro Jlgt~ ~Jlgt Zlgt~ ~~rThe loghttcs of tmplernenttng this alternative would include shipping the

bentonite to the site in either 100 lb bags or 1 - 1-1Z ton sacks Tht ~~OVgt ~zbentonite Is then mixed fn a pug m111 llffth c0111110n f111 which must also be

transported to site) to form an tmpenneable material The mixture h lgt ~~ ~ooplacid on tht landfill using a paving machine and COftiPICted to optimum ltCOdtnstty 0 ~ mrrCtraquo4s analysis of 1 bentonite soil cap shows that bentonites strength 111y O lgt lgt

also be fts weakness Because of bentonites low penHabtlfty 1 relatively ozz thtn cap c1n be tnstllled ln other hndffll closures 1 four (4) Inch

000 0~

thick layer wu tnst111ed to forw the t~~pervtous layer Thts relatively r thtn l1yer would 1ppear to be very susceptible to landfill stttlnt r Bentonite suppliers clltbull that due to the pluttctty of the bulltxture the cap can wtthstlnd larger degrHs of deflect ton without cracking But tn 1 landfill localized uttlfIHnt or shear fltlure ts -ore caonpllct A four tnch thtck sotl cap would not be 1ble to bridge 1ny votds cre1hd by shear flflures Therefore very low tntthl peNIIeabtltttes could ghe Wly to fatlurts tn the capped surface Of the four cap alttrnathes considered tt 1s felt that the bentontttsotl cap would requtre the greatest 1111tnttnanct to usure the systMs tntegrtty

Also the bentonite fonws an hnpervtous mhture by swelling when wet to ftll the votd space between so11 particles Jntufthely thts ftlltng of the votd space should also dtcreue tht coefftctent of frtctton between the btntontttsotl layer and the vegetative support sotf layer Thertfore the chances of slope fat lure on 31 slopes would appt~r to be greater once tht bentonite ts added

Therefore bned on the rtsks Involved t n fnstalltng a bentonite cap along with a relatfvely htgh tn place cost of S7 40s y ft ts ftlt that bentonite 1s not appropriate for the Char les George site

Fly Ash

The third optton conside red was the tnHallatton of a fly ash cap The proposed cap would be approximately four (4) feet thick and would have

) USEPA Region 1 -4- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

penneablllttes In the range of 3Jt05 emsec Permeability tests have shOwn that due to the absorption of water by the fly ash Infiltrating water will never travel all the way through the ash column given a surface slope wh ich al lows for surface dra inage

The negative points of using fly ash are as follows

1 Very dusty material to work with therefore material requires large quantities of water during Installation to ktep dust domiddot

2 Ove~aterlng or excessive rainfall creates very greasy working conditions

3 Slope protection w111 be needed on 31 slopes during Installation to minimize erosion due to rains

4 Tht four- fett thick layer of fly ash would requt rt 19000-22000 truckloads of ash to be brought to the stu

The postthe upects of ustng fly ash include

1 Vt rtu11ly no t nft ltrlt ton through the tlpervtous llyer

) 2 Very tnexpenshe to tnstlll at 1pproxtmaUly $100sy wtth a 4 foot depth

3 Ablt to m1tntatn 31 stde slopes

4 Excessive thickness of matertal llfOuld allow for SOM shur fatlures to occur without comprOIRtstng the tnttgrtty of the c1p

The use of fly ash ts 1 viable opt ton and if the larger qu1nttty of truck required could be tolerated then tt would be acceptable at the Charles George stte

Synthet lc U ner

Although synthetic li ners have a relatively short track record It llfOUld appear that thet r use ts very appropriate for the cap at the Ch1rles George stte Several negative pot nts associated wit h synthetics wil l be mini11ized due to tts app lication as a cap Should a pinhole dev elop or a leaky seam oc cur then the small hydraulic head above the cap woul d not force lftUCh water through the hoI e Also btl ng used as a cap the I 1 ner llfOUl d not be subj ected to poss I bIt degradat ton due to 1 each ate contact Although the liner would be t n contact with volatile org1ntc laden landfill gas the lower concentrat ions t n the gas should not affect the i ntegrity of the ltner

) CAMP DRESSER amp McKEEUSEPA Region I ~5-

Hr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

The one significant ~eakness in a synthetic liner ca pping system 1s the smoothntss of the 11ner making It difficult to support a 31 sloped soil layer liner manufacturers c la im 3 1 s lopes can be successfully maintained but such slopes appear t o be at the upper bound of att a i nment This wea kness ca n be mitigated by the use of geotexttles tn co njunction ~o~1th the liner as will be detailed later

Synthetics strong points Include

1 VIrtual tmpermeabilt ty given good factory qua 1 ty contra I and good seamt ng technl que

2 Approximately 20 truckloads of synthetic mattrlal will covtr the entire stu

3 The liner Installation would not be u dependent on good weather u the soil e~p al ttrnat tves

4 A 40 bulltl thick high density polyethylene ltner can be Insulted for approxtbullattly $450sy

Based on the abOve analysis It 1s COMs rc011111ndatton that 1 synthetic liner be installed as tne tmpervtous cap over the landfill

Gn and Inftltratton Oratnap Laxer

As stated in the evaluation criteria the capping systbull -st accaoctate both landfill gas and tnftltratton collection IgtJe to the inherent 1111Ptmeabi ltttes associated vtth any Impervious cap 1111ttrtal the impervious layer must be undvlched betwen tvo collection layers The drainage layer above the Impervious layer must be able to effecttvely drain any i nfiltration reaching the Impervious layer (liner) so that slope stabtltty can be maintained and the hydraulic head pushing the Infiltration through the 11 ner 1s kept to 1 mt nlm11111

The collection layer belov the liner must allow the-landfill off-gases to migrate to vented collection points so that gas pressures do not butld up sufficiently to force the gn to ex i t uncontrolled from the site through the perimeter toe drains

There are several op t ions ava i lable In constructing effective collection systems The a l ternat f ves eva 1 uated Inc 1 ude natura 1 materia 1s such as sand and crushed st one and synthet t cs whI ch t nc I ude non-woven geotut 11 es drainage nets and a prefabricated drainage s tructure

All of the dra inagecollection media eva luated have an estimated Installed cos t of Sl40 to S5 00 per square ya rd except for Htradratn wh ich Is a prefabricated dra inage structure The unit cost for this material ts Sll 50s y Ht radraf n was e 1 fmt nated f rom cons 1 de rat 1on as bet ng non-cost effec tive a long wi th being susceptable to attack landfill gas

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

) USEPA Region I -3shyHr Richard Leighton CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE

June 12 1985

Based on the above points 1t is recommended that natural clay not be used at the Charles George stte

BentoniteSoil Mixture

Information concerning bentonite ls also included tn my May 29 1985 letter The bentonite sources attest that a betonftesoll mixture can be ~~~~~middot~~-So rs~ permeabil ity less than 10- emsec and -w111 likely ]gt 0

~

1 oro Jlgt~ ~Jlgt Zlgt~ ~~rThe loghttcs of tmplernenttng this alternative would include shipping the

bentonite to the site in either 100 lb bags or 1 - 1-1Z ton sacks Tht ~~OVgt ~zbentonite Is then mixed fn a pug m111 llffth c0111110n f111 which must also be

transported to site) to form an tmpenneable material The mixture h lgt ~~ ~ooplacid on tht landfill using a paving machine and COftiPICted to optimum ltCOdtnstty 0 ~ mrrCtraquo4s analysis of 1 bentonite soil cap shows that bentonites strength 111y O lgt lgt

also be fts weakness Because of bentonites low penHabtlfty 1 relatively ozz thtn cap c1n be tnstllled ln other hndffll closures 1 four (4) Inch

000 0~

thick layer wu tnst111ed to forw the t~~pervtous layer Thts relatively r thtn l1yer would 1ppear to be very susceptible to landfill stttlnt r Bentonite suppliers clltbull that due to the pluttctty of the bulltxture the cap can wtthstlnd larger degrHs of deflect ton without cracking But tn 1 landfill localized uttlfIHnt or shear fltlure ts -ore caonpllct A four tnch thtck sotl cap would not be 1ble to bridge 1ny votds cre1hd by shear flflures Therefore very low tntthl peNIIeabtltttes could ghe Wly to fatlurts tn the capped surface Of the four cap alttrnathes considered tt 1s felt that the bentontttsotl cap would requtre the greatest 1111tnttnanct to usure the systMs tntegrtty

Also the bentonite fonws an hnpervtous mhture by swelling when wet to ftll the votd space between so11 particles Jntufthely thts ftlltng of the votd space should also dtcreue tht coefftctent of frtctton between the btntontttsotl layer and the vegetative support sotf layer Thertfore the chances of slope fat lure on 31 slopes would appt~r to be greater once tht bentonite ts added

Therefore bned on the rtsks Involved t n fnstalltng a bentonite cap along with a relatfvely htgh tn place cost of S7 40s y ft ts ftlt that bentonite 1s not appropriate for the Char les George site

Fly Ash

The third optton conside red was the tnHallatton of a fly ash cap The proposed cap would be approximately four (4) feet thick and would have

) USEPA Region 1 -4- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

penneablllttes In the range of 3Jt05 emsec Permeability tests have shOwn that due to the absorption of water by the fly ash Infiltrating water will never travel all the way through the ash column given a surface slope wh ich al lows for surface dra inage

The negative points of using fly ash are as follows

1 Very dusty material to work with therefore material requires large quantities of water during Installation to ktep dust domiddot

2 Ove~aterlng or excessive rainfall creates very greasy working conditions

3 Slope protection w111 be needed on 31 slopes during Installation to minimize erosion due to rains

4 Tht four- fett thick layer of fly ash would requt rt 19000-22000 truckloads of ash to be brought to the stu

The postthe upects of ustng fly ash include

1 Vt rtu11ly no t nft ltrlt ton through the tlpervtous llyer

) 2 Very tnexpenshe to tnstlll at 1pproxtmaUly $100sy wtth a 4 foot depth

3 Ablt to m1tntatn 31 stde slopes

4 Excessive thickness of matertal llfOuld allow for SOM shur fatlures to occur without comprOIRtstng the tnttgrtty of the c1p

The use of fly ash ts 1 viable opt ton and if the larger qu1nttty of truck required could be tolerated then tt would be acceptable at the Charles George stte

Synthet lc U ner

Although synthetic li ners have a relatively short track record It llfOUld appear that thet r use ts very appropriate for the cap at the Ch1rles George stte Several negative pot nts associated wit h synthetics wil l be mini11ized due to tts app lication as a cap Should a pinhole dev elop or a leaky seam oc cur then the small hydraulic head above the cap woul d not force lftUCh water through the hoI e Also btl ng used as a cap the I 1 ner llfOUl d not be subj ected to poss I bIt degradat ton due to 1 each ate contact Although the liner would be t n contact with volatile org1ntc laden landfill gas the lower concentrat ions t n the gas should not affect the i ntegrity of the ltner

) CAMP DRESSER amp McKEEUSEPA Region I ~5-

Hr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

The one significant ~eakness in a synthetic liner ca pping system 1s the smoothntss of the 11ner making It difficult to support a 31 sloped soil layer liner manufacturers c la im 3 1 s lopes can be successfully maintained but such slopes appear t o be at the upper bound of att a i nment This wea kness ca n be mitigated by the use of geotexttles tn co njunction ~o~1th the liner as will be detailed later

Synthetics strong points Include

1 VIrtual tmpermeabilt ty given good factory qua 1 ty contra I and good seamt ng technl que

2 Approximately 20 truckloads of synthetic mattrlal will covtr the entire stu

3 The liner Installation would not be u dependent on good weather u the soil e~p al ttrnat tves

4 A 40 bulltl thick high density polyethylene ltner can be Insulted for approxtbullattly $450sy

Based on the abOve analysis It 1s COMs rc011111ndatton that 1 synthetic liner be installed as tne tmpervtous cap over the landfill

Gn and Inftltratton Oratnap Laxer

As stated in the evaluation criteria the capping systbull -st accaoctate both landfill gas and tnftltratton collection IgtJe to the inherent 1111Ptmeabi ltttes associated vtth any Impervious cap 1111ttrtal the impervious layer must be undvlched betwen tvo collection layers The drainage layer above the Impervious layer must be able to effecttvely drain any i nfiltration reaching the Impervious layer (liner) so that slope stabtltty can be maintained and the hydraulic head pushing the Infiltration through the 11 ner 1s kept to 1 mt nlm11111

The collection layer belov the liner must allow the-landfill off-gases to migrate to vented collection points so that gas pressures do not butld up sufficiently to force the gn to ex i t uncontrolled from the site through the perimeter toe drains

There are several op t ions ava i lable In constructing effective collection systems The a l ternat f ves eva 1 uated Inc 1 ude natura 1 materia 1s such as sand and crushed st one and synthet t cs whI ch t nc I ude non-woven geotut 11 es drainage nets and a prefabricated drainage s tructure

All of the dra inagecollection media eva luated have an estimated Installed cos t of Sl40 to S5 00 per square ya rd except for Htradratn wh ich Is a prefabricated dra inage structure The unit cost for this material ts Sll 50s y Ht radraf n was e 1 fmt nated f rom cons 1 de rat 1on as bet ng non-cost effec tive a long wi th being susceptable to attack landfill gas

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

) USEPA Region 1 -4- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

penneablllttes In the range of 3Jt05 emsec Permeability tests have shOwn that due to the absorption of water by the fly ash Infiltrating water will never travel all the way through the ash column given a surface slope wh ich al lows for surface dra inage

The negative points of using fly ash are as follows

1 Very dusty material to work with therefore material requires large quantities of water during Installation to ktep dust domiddot

2 Ove~aterlng or excessive rainfall creates very greasy working conditions

3 Slope protection w111 be needed on 31 slopes during Installation to minimize erosion due to rains

4 Tht four- fett thick layer of fly ash would requt rt 19000-22000 truckloads of ash to be brought to the stu

The postthe upects of ustng fly ash include

1 Vt rtu11ly no t nft ltrlt ton through the tlpervtous llyer

) 2 Very tnexpenshe to tnstlll at 1pproxtmaUly $100sy wtth a 4 foot depth

3 Ablt to m1tntatn 31 stde slopes

4 Excessive thickness of matertal llfOuld allow for SOM shur fatlures to occur without comprOIRtstng the tnttgrtty of the c1p

The use of fly ash ts 1 viable opt ton and if the larger qu1nttty of truck required could be tolerated then tt would be acceptable at the Charles George stte

Synthet lc U ner

Although synthetic li ners have a relatively short track record It llfOUld appear that thet r use ts very appropriate for the cap at the Ch1rles George stte Several negative pot nts associated wit h synthetics wil l be mini11ized due to tts app lication as a cap Should a pinhole dev elop or a leaky seam oc cur then the small hydraulic head above the cap woul d not force lftUCh water through the hoI e Also btl ng used as a cap the I 1 ner llfOUl d not be subj ected to poss I bIt degradat ton due to 1 each ate contact Although the liner would be t n contact with volatile org1ntc laden landfill gas the lower concentrat ions t n the gas should not affect the i ntegrity of the ltner

) CAMP DRESSER amp McKEEUSEPA Region I ~5-

Hr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

The one significant ~eakness in a synthetic liner ca pping system 1s the smoothntss of the 11ner making It difficult to support a 31 sloped soil layer liner manufacturers c la im 3 1 s lopes can be successfully maintained but such slopes appear t o be at the upper bound of att a i nment This wea kness ca n be mitigated by the use of geotexttles tn co njunction ~o~1th the liner as will be detailed later

Synthetics strong points Include

1 VIrtual tmpermeabilt ty given good factory qua 1 ty contra I and good seamt ng technl que

2 Approximately 20 truckloads of synthetic mattrlal will covtr the entire stu

3 The liner Installation would not be u dependent on good weather u the soil e~p al ttrnat tves

4 A 40 bulltl thick high density polyethylene ltner can be Insulted for approxtbullattly $450sy

Based on the abOve analysis It 1s COMs rc011111ndatton that 1 synthetic liner be installed as tne tmpervtous cap over the landfill

Gn and Inftltratton Oratnap Laxer

As stated in the evaluation criteria the capping systbull -st accaoctate both landfill gas and tnftltratton collection IgtJe to the inherent 1111Ptmeabi ltttes associated vtth any Impervious cap 1111ttrtal the impervious layer must be undvlched betwen tvo collection layers The drainage layer above the Impervious layer must be able to effecttvely drain any i nfiltration reaching the Impervious layer (liner) so that slope stabtltty can be maintained and the hydraulic head pushing the Infiltration through the 11 ner 1s kept to 1 mt nlm11111

The collection layer belov the liner must allow the-landfill off-gases to migrate to vented collection points so that gas pressures do not butld up sufficiently to force the gn to ex i t uncontrolled from the site through the perimeter toe drains

There are several op t ions ava i lable In constructing effective collection systems The a l ternat f ves eva 1 uated Inc 1 ude natura 1 materia 1s such as sand and crushed st one and synthet t cs whI ch t nc I ude non-woven geotut 11 es drainage nets and a prefabricated drainage s tructure

All of the dra inagecollection media eva luated have an estimated Installed cos t of Sl40 to S5 00 per square ya rd except for Htradratn wh ich Is a prefabricated dra inage structure The unit cost for this material ts Sll 50s y Ht radraf n was e 1 fmt nated f rom cons 1 de rat 1on as bet ng non-cost effec tive a long wi th being susceptable to attack landfill gas

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

) CAMP DRESSER amp McKEEUSEPA Region I ~5-

Hr Richard Leighton June 12 1985

The one significant ~eakness in a synthetic liner ca pping system 1s the smoothntss of the 11ner making It difficult to support a 31 sloped soil layer liner manufacturers c la im 3 1 s lopes can be successfully maintained but such slopes appear t o be at the upper bound of att a i nment This wea kness ca n be mitigated by the use of geotexttles tn co njunction ~o~1th the liner as will be detailed later

Synthetics strong points Include

1 VIrtual tmpermeabilt ty given good factory qua 1 ty contra I and good seamt ng technl que

2 Approximately 20 truckloads of synthetic mattrlal will covtr the entire stu

3 The liner Installation would not be u dependent on good weather u the soil e~p al ttrnat tves

4 A 40 bulltl thick high density polyethylene ltner can be Insulted for approxtbullattly $450sy

Based on the abOve analysis It 1s COMs rc011111ndatton that 1 synthetic liner be installed as tne tmpervtous cap over the landfill

Gn and Inftltratton Oratnap Laxer

As stated in the evaluation criteria the capping systbull -st accaoctate both landfill gas and tnftltratton collection IgtJe to the inherent 1111Ptmeabi ltttes associated vtth any Impervious cap 1111ttrtal the impervious layer must be undvlched betwen tvo collection layers The drainage layer above the Impervious layer must be able to effecttvely drain any i nfiltration reaching the Impervious layer (liner) so that slope stabtltty can be maintained and the hydraulic head pushing the Infiltration through the 11 ner 1s kept to 1 mt nlm11111

The collection layer belov the liner must allow the-landfill off-gases to migrate to vented collection points so that gas pressures do not butld up sufficiently to force the gn to ex i t uncontrolled from the site through the perimeter toe drains

There are several op t ions ava i lable In constructing effective collection systems The a l ternat f ves eva 1 uated Inc 1 ude natura 1 materia 1s such as sand and crushed st one and synthet t cs whI ch t nc I ude non-woven geotut 11 es drainage nets and a prefabricated drainage s tructure

All of the dra inagecollection media eva luated have an estimated Installed cos t of Sl40 to S5 00 per square ya rd except for Htradratn wh ich Is a prefabricated dra inage structure The unit cost for this material ts Sll 50s y Ht radraf n was e 1 fmt nated f rom cons 1 de rat 1on as bet ng non-cost effec tive a long wi th being susceptable to attack landfill gas

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

) USEPA Region 1 middot6middot CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Le ighton June 12 1985

Based on the comparisons made 1n Table 1 it i s recorrrnended that a dra i nage net or grid similar to that manufactured by Tensar be used for both infiltration and gas collecti on Both the sand and crushed stone options would require appro tmate ly 5000 truckloads of material per foot of depth The crushed stone would on ly be used for gas collection under the liner due to its weight and sharp faces NUS Corporation proposed in the SourceshyOri ented Feasibility Study that a one (1) foot thick layer of stone installed over the site would be required Thh layer alone would require approximately 5600 truckloads of material Conversations w1th loca l crushed stone s upp11 ers have determined that this quantity of stone (appro~ttmately 170000 tons ) would require approKimately one year to generate

TABLE I

COMPARISON Of COLLECTION MEOlA

fquhlltnt Esttuted Plan1r Equhlltnt lnstllltd COst Pellltlbt 1ttl ~ I middotlmiddot 84d0-J CIIIStc 188 1n S2556middot1n dt11thSnd1

1-112bull crushtd stone2 50 CIIISeC 003 1n S5 0012-1n dllth

26250 o11 1140~~=middot~~~~13 006 cmsec 3

~~~~~~~middot~r~~~~~middot 12 1 CIIIStte lt1 layerbull $1350

Drainage Net5 (Tenur-DN-3 ) 10 emsec 1 layer_ 1382

T)Efiroeder P R et al (1984) Hydrologtc Evaluat ion of Landfill Performance (HELPlfOdel p 4-27

2 Peck AB 1974 Foundation Engtneertng p 43 3 Qu111ne Manufacturer s Ca t alog 4 Tes ts Res ul t s s upp li ed by N Wtlltams for Tensar Corp 5 Es t imated f rom data supplied by the manufacturer shy

late ral flow bull 5 gal mi nft bullHarad r a i n has only one size appror 0 625 inches i n thick ness

USEPA Region I -7- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Mr Richard Leighton June 12 198S

Using sand (assumed 6-tnch layers) for either gas or Infiltration collection would require an estimated additional 2800 truckloads of sand per 6-tnch layer Therefore due to the desire to mfnfm1ze vehicular trarrtc to the site the use of either sand or crushed stone is not recOITIIIended

Of the remaining synthetics being considered the Tensar drai nage net covered by a ft Iter fabrf c to e 1 imf nate soil ff nes from c 1 oggl ng the net appears to be the best Because of the rigid nature of the net (pol yethy lene material) the nets penneabtlfty or transmtsstvtty ts not as affected by overburden loading The geotext11es transmissivity decreases as tt ts compressed by the sot I bet ng placed on top of It As shown 1 n Tab1 e 1 even unloaded the geotext11t transmissivity 1s not equal to that of the drai nage net Therefore for any given thickness of material mort gas or infiltration can pus through a drainage net than through a geohxt11e This means that the pressure buildup both on top and underneath the liner w111 be reduced with the tnstalhtlon of 1 drainage net

One other advantage associated with the drainage net ts Its tensile strength en c011pared to the geotextt1e the drainage net has 1 greater tensile strength which will assist the ltner syste In bridging any localized shear soil failures

) The plactMnt of the drainage net on top of the bullsltckbull tlrane 1tner wt 11 not affect slope stability u both layers wl11 bt anchored both top and bottc llle slip plane will occur between the sotl layer and the filter fabric which ts placed over the drainage net fued on research done by

n~~d~~t~~ ~~s~~r~e16~n1~~~ 1 1~~middot~~01~esmiddot~~~ slope should not cr11te any sotlgeotexttle sltppage htlures It should be noted for future reference that the sotl to HOPE slippage angle Is 18bull or slightly less than a 3 1 slope

Figure 1 shows several different composite synthetic capping alternatives for review and ccnpartson Based on the above analysts It Is recomnended that 1 system similar to that shown u Alternative 7 In Flg_ure 1 be adopted as the Charles George final closure cap It Is furthlt recOIIIIIInded that a woven fabric be placed under the entire system as additional Inexpensive (S060 sy) Insurance against the cap system falling due to sett lement or collapsing of the supporting soil base This would Increase the estimated Installed unit cost to Sl812s y or approximately S6 ZOOOOO to cover the entire Char les George sHe

~JP et al bullExperimental Friction Evaluation of Slippage Betlfeen Geomembranes GeoteKtlles and Soi lsbull Second International Conference of Geomembranes Denver 1984

-

USEPA Reg1on I -8- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Hr Richard Leighton June 12 198S

Should you have any quest ions concerning th1s recOIIIIItndatton please feel free to contact me

Very trul y you rs

CAMP DRESSER amp lltcKEE INC

0ds~ StU Mlnager

Rtca-enclatton Revtewed and Accoptld by EPA

$19ftapoundurt batt R1chard leighton RSPO

) Robull1- By

S1gnapoundurt bite

Exceptions taken IS noted

11tfII~ bate

CE8gf1

F NDTAROONATOcc R PETERSEN 0 GAGNER HUGHTO

R BOIS S GATES NPMO OOCIJ4ENT CONTROLJ DESMOND

-wn--1~~ li JoN olur than thlo CHARLES GEORGE LAND natlot It lo dotto tho _ RECLAMATI ON TRUST LANDFILL

of tilt dOCUMint ADMIN I STRATIVE RECORD

Ilt 3a 0

u

_ j j 1111_~~ ---middot lllqJ-middot

~1MOt _ a11U1N)OO bull JI bull1nbullbull1 bulltnbull ~~~-~~middotmiddot ~ -

-11 Apu ZI -1 A-s ZI -bull

IIMdot 9 tGS~Mtl 9 2zVz7z)zlG) -reg

--~amp middot r middotyenWtmiddotmiddot-~~poundbullbullt0pound

--~-~~ltltltgt-~ - -~middotc _ -- middotshy

-l~Gl middot bulllllbullbulllNI -l AIVfSZl bull -rr~ -~ UD5do19

reg reg S311113HgtS ONiddVgt OIJ3HLJU~VMBJ1V (

-~ __Ot ~Jtbull o~nat-_ ~-~bull bull bullbullbullbullL ltiJ-nMt

-lAP~WS ~Zl middot

R7~ (f)

=-~ _ Ot middot-bull

JIUi9 bull ---middot t

___~ uosdot9

reg

ltD

1 3tmtgtl )

1. barcode 555411
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 555411

-

USEPA Reg1on I -8- CAMP DRESSER amp McKEE Hr Richard Leighton June 12 198S

Should you have any quest ions concerning th1s recOIIIIItndatton please feel free to contact me

Very trul y you rs

CAMP DRESSER amp lltcKEE INC

0ds~ StU Mlnager

Rtca-enclatton Revtewed and Accoptld by EPA

$19ftapoundurt batt R1chard leighton RSPO

) Robull1- By

S1gnapoundurt bite

Exceptions taken IS noted

11tfII~ bate

CE8gf1

F NDTAROONATOcc R PETERSEN 0 GAGNER HUGHTO

R BOIS S GATES NPMO OOCIJ4ENT CONTROLJ DESMOND

-wn--1~~ li JoN olur than thlo CHARLES GEORGE LAND natlot It lo dotto tho _ RECLAMATI ON TRUST LANDFILL

of tilt dOCUMint ADMIN I STRATIVE RECORD

Ilt 3a 0

u

_ j j 1111_~~ ---middot lllqJ-middot

~1MOt _ a11U1N)OO bull JI bull1nbullbull1 bulltnbull ~~~-~~middotmiddot ~ -

-11 Apu ZI -1 A-s ZI -bull

IIMdot 9 tGS~Mtl 9 2zVz7z)zlG) -reg

--~amp middot r middotyenWtmiddotmiddot-~~poundbullbullt0pound

--~-~~ltltltgt-~ - -~middotc _ -- middotshy

-l~Gl middot bulllllbullbulllNI -l AIVfSZl bull -rr~ -~ UD5do19

reg reg S311113HgtS ONiddVgt OIJ3HLJU~VMBJ1V (

-~ __Ot ~Jtbull o~nat-_ ~-~bull bull bullbullbullbullL ltiJ-nMt

-lAP~WS ~Zl middot

R7~ (f)

=-~ _ Ot middot-bull

JIUi9 bull ---middot t

___~ uosdot9

reg

ltD

1 3tmtgtl )

1. barcode 555411
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 555411

-wn--1~~ li JoN olur than thlo CHARLES GEORGE LAND natlot It lo dotto tho _ RECLAMATI ON TRUST LANDFILL

of tilt dOCUMint ADMIN I STRATIVE RECORD

Ilt 3a 0

u

_ j j 1111_~~ ---middot lllqJ-middot

~1MOt _ a11U1N)OO bull JI bull1nbullbull1 bulltnbull ~~~-~~middotmiddot ~ -

-11 Apu ZI -1 A-s ZI -bull

IIMdot 9 tGS~Mtl 9 2zVz7z)zlG) -reg

--~amp middot r middotyenWtmiddotmiddot-~~poundbullbullt0pound

--~-~~ltltltgt-~ - -~middotc _ -- middotshy

-l~Gl middot bulllllbullbulllNI -l AIVfSZl bull -rr~ -~ UD5do19

reg reg S311113HgtS ONiddVgt OIJ3HLJU~VMBJ1V (

-~ __Ot ~Jtbull o~nat-_ ~-~bull bull bullbullbullbullL ltiJ-nMt

-lAP~WS ~Zl middot

R7~ (f)

=-~ _ Ot middot-bull

JIUi9 bull ---middot t

___~ uosdot9

reg

ltD

1 3tmtgtl )

1. barcode 555411
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 555411