Laserfiche WebLink
• FEB -02-1996 13:25 FROM CR INTEGRPTED WPISTE MGNT TO <br />Austin Road Landfill fpangi= (39 -AA -0001) <br />December 11, 1995 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />110111 "MMI W-1 <br />king df -vehicles <br />public streetOr r0ad6. "SP6c'f 11y' stac <br />waiting to enter the site 6ii Public streets or i0ads inaY` <br />only occur as approved by lodal traffic e�dgineering and <br />police auth6rities.00 The RDsX does not but should discuss <br />stacking lanes, provisibn's*for turns acrbsB traffic- <br />-29; AppendIx Br <br />X=agement Plan: Appendix 1, Pa963 <br />Drawinga PI PS <br />As required by 41 CCR 182220h)r'.the RDSI must Laclude a <br />R(d)escription of the syste�i.,ptoposed to provide for Vehting <br />control, monitoring, and possible use Of landfill <br />decomposition gases.,, The RDSI states that this information <br />will be o.'Ancluded.either iA.future pacific Energy plans <br />h rn <br />or in clost;re desig'ni, fdt Specif ic closure. p <br />order to comply.with 14,CCR 18222(m), this information <br />should be included in the RD,�±. The description Of the gas <br />e <br />control and.monitoring system should include thi-laYOut,and <br />location 'of vertical gas collt6tion wells, headers, -vertical <br />well laterals, landfi 1 11 gas t�igratioh. control probes, the <br />condensate collection sYstem, direction of condensate f1614-, <br />perimeter condensqLte P%XMPS-,,,,a=y.ga8 recOverY or flaring <br />o <br />orm&tich -neceesary. to.,�cmply viith 14 <br />o <br />facility, and -ther ilif <br />CCR _1$2221m) <br />DZA ZALCULAITIgn <br />Site Cap . acity; Apyendix I., pages 1-3 to 1-5 <br />Table. 1--I, wiLustin koad 1 --=df ill CaPar-it3� Estimates", <br />estimates cumulativi-refuse capacity at 14.4 million cubic <br />yards. Table 1-2. *Austin k6ad LaJP4fill Site Life <br />Projections", estimates cu�mlative volume- at 15 - 8 million <br />cubic yards. Because the differences between it tables <br />was not apparont, the estimates seemed to conflict. After a <br />little deduction, it. was concluded that tJ24 dif fer6nce is <br />that Table 1-1 estimates the r'emaiUigg c;ipacity while Table <br />-2 estimates the total, capacity- of the limiffill - 0_16arer <br />flict by, ma�klng <br />titles would make clear up any apparekt con <br />the differences between the two tables readily apparent. <br />The maximum depth Of thebO=Ow` Pit is estimated to be". <br />approximately 35 feet. 'At hi.4 depth, the b6tt0VA Of the <br />borrow pit could be close to.the average maximum grotmdwate:� <br />table (see Appendix 1, Page 1-10), and will probably be in <br />vadose zone. As �he qrc-,=dwazer level. fl.,_-tuazes �y <br />season and by year, durini a sOtries of wet YeaL-s Zhe <br />groundwater level may rise �o that the borrow Viz wou,ld"bia <br />nis" t, It seems likely that <br />inundated during portio of lie Yeat - <br />the location of the vadose zone or groundwater <br />