Kodiak Island Borough solid waste disposal study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

s L A

KODIAK BORIOL.11.1,GH
"),LANDF
STuby

n I

'oe

Arcfip,,@,,_,,Eh,` i n,,e,

9-a2
ril-

ary I

INDEX

RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND & PROJECTIO-NS 2

SITE EVALUATIONS
& ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3

CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL REQUIREMENTS 4
14L,

BALER FACILITY & LANDFILL. 5

SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL 6

JUNK AUTO & SCRAP METAL DISPOSAL 7

COST COMPARISONS 8

A,PPENDI X 9

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY

"The preparation of this study was financed in part
by funds from the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the
Division of Community Planning, Alaska Department
of Community and Regional Affairs."

VS nepartmont of Commerce
IC--A Coastal Onrvices Canter Library
223d Scuth llo!ooon Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Prepared by:

Arctic Engineers, Inc.
1506 West 36th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 1
1
1
I

CHAPTER 1

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ORGANIZATION

The Greater Kodiak area should be organized as one solid waste dis-
posal utility to provide service for the entire area served by the road
system. The Coast Guard, Borough and City should all be included.

11. SOLID WASTE PROCESSING

The analysis carried out in this study clearly shows that baling solid
wastes presents the most cost effective solution to long range solid
waste disposal. Weight must be given to the risks caused by more strin-
gent future operation requirements that will create added costs of operation,
therefore baling becomes even more attractive. Bales dramatically reduce the
potential for leachate production and thus reduce one of the largest cost
risks.

A baling facility located in or on-the edge of the City of Kodiak
should be designed, funded, and installed.

111. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The existing City of Kodiak landfill should be updated and converted
to a bale fill. The fill should be operated strictly as a sanitary landfill
with very positive surface sealing practiced.

The junk auto and scrap metal disposal program that is currently-being
strengthened should continue. The Borough should.investigate mechanisms for
forcing junk auto owners to dispose of their own vehicles through enforceable
regulation and/or taxation. If landfilling must be practiced, it should be at
a separate site.

The City of Kodiak should make every attempt to gain authority for dis-
charge of digested and treated sludge from their wastewater treatment plant.
If the City is prohibited from continuing outfall discharge of sludge, a
landfill located in the Solone Creek area following the guidelines set out
in this study should be implemented.

-IV. SCHEDULE

The City of Kodiak has a two year permit that was initiated in late
1981. It is imperative that any election process that is necessary be implemented
so that design and construction can proceed in 1983.

If an election must be held, both the issue of authority to operate
and bonds necessary for financing the project should be voted simultaneously.

V. FUNDING

The project should be funded by a combination of local and State grant
funds. Funding should break down as follows depending on eligibility deter-
minations: The calculations are based on a bale plant, landfill improvements,
and two transfer stations.

1. Local Funding (1983 Dollars) $1,770,000
2. State Grant (1983 Dollars) $1,770,000

I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 2.
1
1
I

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND A"ND PROJECTIONS

1. SCOPE

The Kodiak Borough has a grant from the Alaska Department of Regional
and Community Affairs under the Coastal Energy Impact Program to develop a
Solid Waste Disposal Facility design for the urban area in and around the
City of Kodiak. Soon after the study was initiated, it became very apparent
that the existinF. feasibility study was inadequate and outdated. The scope
of this projectwas then changed to the development of a facility plan including
re-evaluation of all possible sites in the area, The facility plan is to
provide clear step-by-step recommendations for implementation and phase two
detailed design.

11. CLIMATOLOGY

Kodiak Island is located on the western side of the Gulf of Alaska, 90 miles
southwest of the Kenai Peninsula. Oriented northeast-southwest, the island
lies 25 miles southeast of the Alaska Peninsula, separated from it by the
Shelikof Strait. The terrain is rugged, with the mountains averaging from
2000 to 4000 feet in height. The highest mountains on Kodiak extend to roughly
5000 feet.

Kodiak has primarily a marine climate. During the summer, the mean air
temperature closely approximates the mean sea surface temperature, rising
slightly above it during August, but falling below it again in September. In
winter, the mean maximum air temperature more closely resembles the mean sea
surface temperature curve. Because of the proximity of a large land mass to
Kodiak, the absolute temperature range is 98 degrees, regardless of the
marine influence. Records show a low of - 12 degrees in February 1971, and a
high of 86 degrees in June 1953.

Precipitation is normally abundant throughout the year. Maximums
normally occur in September and October with March, April and July the driest
months. All months, however, have a wide variation in the amount of precip-
itation. The normal annual precipitation is over 60 inches but ranges from
about 40 to 80 inches. A very high percentage of the precipitation falls
during northeast to southwest winds. Small amounts of snow may fall as late
as May or as early as September with good ground cover anticipated in
November. The mean annual snowfall is about 90 inches with extremes of 178.1
inches in 1956 and 15.9 inches in 1945.

Although the prevailing wind direction is northwesterly, every month
except May, June, and July, the average speed is about 10 knots. This
data may be misleading because of the extreme variability in both direction
and speed. Gusts of over 50 knots have occurred during each month of the
year, but are most likely to occur in the winter months. An average of
eight storms each year brings wind in excess of 55 knots with the average
duration of gusts in excess of 55 knots about eight hours per storm.

111. PROJECTIONS

A. Population

Table 2-1 shows population projections available from the Kodiak Borough
Planning Department. The Greater Kodiak Area represents all of the Urban-
rural and Coast Guard population that can reasonably be expected to utilize
a facility.

B. Solid Waste Quantities

Table 2-2 draws upon the data of table 2-1 to develop annual quantities
of solid waste generated. The calculations are based on estimates of quant-
ities by the local solid waste contractor and general experience in the field.
The 4.5 pounds per capita figure represents all sources of waste and is not
limited to just household wastes.

Table 2-3 gives the annual volume of fill required for 1) Bale fill and
2) Conventional fill.. The table also gives the running accumulation in
cubic yards.

Table 2-4 gives the accumulation in acre feet. Variation in the cap-
abilities of the sites to accept landfill material to given depths will
occur. However at a nominal depth of 20 feet, the community will need the
following minimum land area:

1) Bale fill 9.44; Say 10 Acres
Because other material that is non-baleable must be accommodated,
this area should be increased to 15 acres minimum.

2) Conventional Landfill 20.23; Say 21 Acres

The period covered represents thirteen years of service. The landfill
improvements should be developed for a twenty year design if possible.
Taking the growth rate of 1.7% as shown in the coastal zone management
population projections for the period from 1995 to 2000 and extrapolating
two years beyond 2000, the community can be expected to be producing nearly
30 million pounds of solid waste annually. The extended numbers are shown
in Tables 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4. The minimum 20 year acreage requirements based
on nominal 20 foot depth of landfill are:

1) Bale Fill Area: 15.8 Acres; Say 16 Acres plus conventional land-
fill requirements created by non-baleable material.
Use 25 Acres as requirement at 20 foot average depth. Additional
acreage is required for obtaining cover material.

2) Conventional Landfill: 33.9 Acres; Say 34 Acres
Use 40 Acres as requirement at 20 foot average depth. Additional
acreage is necessary to obtain cover material.

c. Cover Material

The general Kodiak urban area has a very shallow soil mantel over
slightly fractured rock. Cover availability and means for limiting its
required volume are very important considerations both in the selection
of landfill operation technique and the landfill site for Kodiak. The
cover requirements of a bale fill will be approximately 10% of the final
fill volume, while the cover requirements of a conventional landfill will
be approximately 25% of the final fill volume. The differences are easier
to see when the actual projected cover quantities are compared:

Convent ional
Fill Bale Fill
Requirements Requirements Conventional
for Cover for Cover* Versus Bale Fill
Year (Cubic Yards) (Cubic Yards) Ratio

1983 92790 1,830 5.4

1987 11,880 2,230 5.4

1992 13,670 2,550 5.4

The depth of the bale fill has considerable bearing on the percent cover required.
The deeper the fill the lower the percent.
Adjusted to account for cover needed for conventional landfilling of non-
baleable material.

TABLE 2-1

GREATER KODIAK POPULATION
PROJECTIONS

Information from Coastal Zone Management Program
and Kodiak Island Community Profiles

YEAR BOROUGH TOTAL OTHER AREAS GREATER KODIAK.TOTAL

1980 9,917 1,295 8,622

1985 13,851 1,430 12,421

1990 15,558 1,579 13,979

1995 17,967 1,743 16,224

2000 19,556 1,924 17,632

TABLE 2-2

GREATER KODIAK AREA
SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS

Based on 4.5 #/Person/Day)

RATE OF'. DAILY TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL
INCREASE YEAR POPULATION IN POUNDS IN POUNDS

7.546% 1980 8,622 38,799 14,161,635

1981 9,275 41F737 15,234,188

1982 9,976 44,892 16,385,580

1983 10,733 48,299 17,628,953

1984 11,546 51,957 18,964,305

1985 12,421 55,895 20,401,492

2.3915% 1986 12,718 57,231 20,889,315

1987 13,022 58,599 21,388,635

1988 13,334 60,003 21,901,095

1989 13,653 61,438 22,425,053

1990 13,979 62,905 22,960,508

3.5116% 1991 14,470 65,115 23,766,975

1992 14,978 67,401 24,601,365

1993 15,504 69,768 25,465,320

1994 16,049 72,221 26,360,483

1.6784 % 1995 16,224 73,008 26,647,920

2000 17,632 - -

EXTRAPOLATION TO 2002 29,940,8701

TABLE 2-3

VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

BALE FILL (D IN CUBIC YARDS CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL(g)IN CUBIC YARDS

ANNUAL
YEAR ANNUAL COVER TOTAL ACCUMULATION ANNUAL COVER TOTAL ACCUMULATION

1983 16,630 1,660 18,290 18,290 29,380 9,790 39,170 39,170

1984 17,890 1,790 19,680 19,680 31,610 10,540 42,150 81,320

1985 19,250 1,930 21,180 59,150 34,010 11,340 45,350 126,670

1986 19,710 1,970 21,680 80,830 34,820 11,610 46,430 173,100

1987 20,180 2,020 22,200 103,030 35,650 11,880 47,530 220,630

1988 20,660 2,070 22,730 125,760 36,500 12,170 49,210 -269,840

1989 21,160 2,120 23,280 149,040 37,380 12,460 49,840 319,680

1990 21,660 2,170 23,830 172,870 38,270 12,760 51,030 370,710

1991 22,420 2,240 24,660 197,530 39,610 13,200 52,810 423,520

1992 23,210 2,320 25,530 223,060 41,010 13,670 54,680 478,200

1993 24,020 2,400 26,420 249,480 42,440 14,150 56,590 534,790

1994 24,870 2,490 27,360 276,840 43,940 14,650 58,590 593,380

1995 25,140 2,510 27,650 304,490 44,410 14,800 .59,210 652,590

28,250 2,830 31,080 510,050 49,900 16,630 66,530 1,092,680
1 1 1 1 1 - I

(D Bale-Volumes Based on 1,060 #/Cu. Yd. Fill at 600 #/Cu. Yd.
Cover @ 1:10. The actual rates of Cover @ 3:1 Rates
cover to fill will decrease as the
fill gets deeper.

TABLE 2-4

LANDFILL
VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
(1 Acre foot = 1,613.3 cubic yards)
(1 Acre foot = 1,613.3 cubic yards)

ACCUMULATION
YEAR CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL BALE LANDFILL

.1983 24.3 11.3

1984 50.4 23.5

1985 78.5 36.7

1986 107.3 50.1

1987 136.8 63.9

1988 167.2 78.0

1989 198.1 92.4

1990 230.0 107.2

1991 262.5 122.4

1992 296.4 138.3

1993 331.4 154.6

1994 367.8 171.6

1995 404.5 188.7

2002 677.3 316.2

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 3
1
1
1
1

CHAPTER 3

SITE EVALUATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

During the field analysis and follow-up, seven sites were reviewed.
The sites are:

A. Solone Creek on Borough Land
B. Solone Creek Gunnery Range
C. Swampy Acres
D. Site West and Above Swampy Acres
E. City of Kodiak Existing Landfill
F. Bell Flats West of Fairgrounds
G. West Bell Flats

The sites will be discussed on a site-by-site basis. Sites F and G
were added to the evaluation ofter the interim report of June 1981 was
reviewed. During the review process, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation requested that sites F and G be reviewed.

11. SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. Land Ownership
B. Availability of Cover Material at the site or within Reasonable
Distance
C. Distance from City of Kodiak
D. Potential for Leachate Production
E. Geography including Vegetation, Wetlands, Streams and Lakes
F. Character of nearby Neighborhoods
G. Fisheries within Downstream area of the Common Drainage Basin
H. Capital Improvement Costs
1. Site Groundwater and Soils Conditions.

A. Solone Creek on Borough Land

The Solone Creek site on Borough Land lies to the East of the Gunnery
Range and is approximately one mile from the highway.

The site is located mostly in wetland or near wetland and has a creek
running along the south side near the existing access road to the Gunnery
Range. The soils in the area consist of silt with some sand covered by a

thin mantel of loam or peat. The silt is tight and it does not appear that
ground water migrates horizontally at a significant rate. Groundwater was
encountered at a depth of 6 to 8 feet.

In order to use the site as a landfill, the area method must be used.
The area method involves building a landfill above the existing ground.
Because of the poor soils beneath the fill site, fabric cloth and an initial
stabilizing fill will be necessary. The cloth and stabilizing course must
be used to allow machinery activity during land filling and to avoid soil
failure after fill completion. Initial preparation costs require that
the area be used to its maximum potential. A program utilizing a minimum
of three eight foot lifts would be required to make economical use of this
site.

The Borough owns land along the base of the ridge just south and west
of the site. This land has good material for construction of a working
pad and can provide,the necessary cover. material. ..The(existing silt prob-
ably can be used as a sealer for the final cover. During wet weather, the
silt will be nearly impossible to work.

The existing access road will have to be upgraded. It currently is
a little better than a wilderness trail. The immediate site access will
require a large culvert creek crossing.

Providing positive surface water control under Kodiak weather conditions
will be nearly impossible. Leachate control should'be accomplished through
positive surface sealing of completed landfill area. It is impossible to
say that no leachate can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would
require that substantial steps be taken to provide positive control includ-
ing very positive surface sealing over completed segments. While a per-
ipheral drain and dike with a leachate recirculation system may help, it
cannot be expected to dissipate the net precipitation production that comes
through the site. The net flow through will become a discharge and the
operator will have to apply for a discharge permit. The extent of net
flow through can be minimized in two ways.
1) A bale fill, properly managed, will be more compact than a normal
fill and will reduce the infiltration potential thus forcing more
of the runoff to take a surface routing. Additionally, the bales
themselves will not allow water to pass through them. A compact
bale fill would make it reasonable to consider a surface seal
using plastic sheeting.
2) The landfill can be completed in sections with the completed
sections being sealed and having positive drainage away from the
facility.

The extent of treatment will be dictated by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Corps of Engineers (Corps),
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Society (USEWS). The extent of treatment can

range from a simple aerated lagoon and sand filter bed to a very complex
physical-chemical treatment plant. The later would be required if the
Agencies insist on heavy metal and complex organic removal.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Solone Creek Borough Land site has a creek on the south edge and
tidal wetlands to the northeast. The site itself will have some wetland
involvement. Solone Creek lies to the north of the site and would receive
any drainage from the site. Solone Creek is considered to be an excellent
Salmon stream.

If a landfill is to be sited at this location, the operating Agency
wi.11 definitely need to obtain a wetlands permit from the Corps as well
as a landfill permit from ADEC.

Because of the nature of the soils at the site, the streams on both
sides can be effectively isolated from direct groundwater input. However,
the necessary discharge described previously cannot be isolated.

It will be difficult to obtain a permit for a conventional landfill.
The stipulations of any permit will probably be very strict and therefore
cause the cost of operation to be very high.

The potential for demonstrating the potential damage is,.minimized andlor
eliminated through the use of a bale fill is excellent.

It will be nearly impossible to screen the site from visability at
the main highway.

Winds coming out of the upper valley can create difficulties in con-
rolling wind blown material.

B. Solone Creek Gunnery Range

The most suitable site in the Solone Creek area is located at the
upper end of the valley in the Gunnery Range. The Borough does not own
the land and it is a popular it-unofficial" rifle range.

The soil varies from sandy gravel to sandy silt and the water tablevaries
from 4 to 7 feet deep. Because of the silt subsoil, filter fabric and a
gravel overlay may be necessary to assure that the integrity of the land-
fill can be maintained.

Surface drainage will create the same problems as discussed previously,
but to a somewhat less severe potential. The discussion of the previous
site also applies to this site.,

The site also has some area that will probably be classified as
wetlands. The wetlands area will require a Corps permit and all the other
agencies will have a say in the stipulations.

While the Solone Creek Gunnery Range site appears to be a reasonable
site, it is the most distant of the sites and does require extensive access
road construction.

Like the other Solone Creek Site, the area method of landfill must be
used. The area method should be very effective, particularily if a bale
fill approach is used.

Leachate control should be accomplished through the positive seal-
ing of completed landfill surface areas. It is impossible to say that no leachate
can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would require that substant-
ial steps be taken to provide positive control including very positive sur-
face sealing over completed segments.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Solone Creek Gunnery Range site has Solone Creek reasonably close
on the north side and a small stream that courses along the south edge

Approximately one-half of the site will probably be classified as
wetlands.

The wetlands portion will require extensive justification for its use
as a landfill. Of the four sites that involve wetlands, this site probably
has the best arguments going for it. The wetlands portion can be easily
isolated and its character changed to assure its continued isolation from
the natural wetlands around it to the east and north.

As discussed previously, any drainage from the site will discharge
to Solone Creek directly or through the wetlands and minor stream routing.

The factors brought out previously regarding potential leachate cont-
rol requirements are equally valid for this site.

High winds from the upper valley can be expected to provide serious
litter control problems. Site visibility from the road or other settled
areas can be effectively controlled.

C. Swampy Acres

The Swampy Acres site involves wetlands including a* small shallow lake.
The site is located northeast of Coast Guard housing and adjacent to the
main highway between Kodiak and the Airport.

The site varies from shallow bedrock to deposits of silt with muskeg
overlaying them.

Cover will be a problem and may have to be imported from Bell Flats
or Solone Creek.

While the Swampy Acres site was recommended in a previous report
by another engineer, times have changed and factors such as more stringent
ADEC requirements and wetlands permits by the Corps were not a necessity
at that time. They are now of major concern.

Drainage from the Swampy Acres site probably goes into other lakes
in the area and into Salmon streams feeding out of the lakes. A hydrologic
study would be necessary to ascertain this. The only acceptable method of
landfill operation would be the area method as described earlier.

Leachate control should be accomplished through positive surface seal-
ing of completed landfill areas. It is impossible to say that no leachate
can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would require that substant-
ial steps be taken to provide positive control including the use of bale
landfill techniques and very positive surface sealing over completed seg-
ments

An access road can be built with direct connection to the main highway.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Swampy Acres site is located in wetlands including a small shallow
lake. The outlet for the lake is not clearly defined but undoubtedly courses
through a lake to the south and a stream to the ocean.

The wetlands are clearly covered under the wetland permit requirements
while the Solone Creek sites have a clearer potential for damage to Salmon
streams, the small lake involved in this system will probably make it equally
tough to get a wetlands permit. The operation requirements can be expected
to be as strict and more difficult to achieve.

Site problems will evolve from two factors, nusiance potential and
leachate. The nusiance factor consists of blown litter and visibility to
the general public from the highway. The litter problem can be controlled
reasonably, but not totally, by fencing. The problems created by leachate
are similar to those described in the Borough Solone Creek site analysis.
They will be more severe at Swampy Acres, because it is located at the
bottom of a drainage bowl.

D. Site West and above Swampy Acres

A site could be developed in the low hills just above the Swampy
Acres site. The site will be the second most r1ifficult of the new sites
to develop. However, a bottom seal dOES not appear to be necessary..
Surface drainage will be easier to control and a surface seal should
provide adequate protection from leachate. The site is more appropriate
for a bale fill. A conventional loose garbage landfill will present two
very significant problems,
1) Traffic management for access will be difficult and probably will
impact the nearby areas. Site control including normal traffic
operations will be difficult.
2) Blown litter will be very difficult to control.

Once the general area drainage has been corrected to isolate the act-
ive site, surface drainage from completed portions should be more effective
than the other sites, except the existing City site and possibly the West
Bell Flats site.

The access road to this area will be the second most difficult to devel-
op of all the alternates.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The general area is at the top of two drainage systems and there is
a small perched lake in the immediate area. Leachate control will have to
be very positive, otherwise it will contaminate one or both of the drainage
systems involved. In the one direction, a river that flows southeast courses
through the Coast Guard Housing Area. If leachate is developed the odds
are pretty good that very extensive treatment will be required.

With the exception of the small lake, the area does not appear to in-
volve wetlands.

A new access road would have to be provided in order to avoid nusiance
impact on the Coast Guard Housing Area.

The area is well screened with natural hills and trees. However, litter
could be picked up by updrafts and carried a long distance-tif conventional
landfill practices were used.

E. City Of Kodiak Existing Landfill

The existing City Landfill site is located just off Monaska Bay Road
at approximately four mile.

The existing City of Kodiak "landfill" is not being operated as a
true sanitary landfill. The costs of conversion to a true sanitary land-
fill are going to be very high and difficult, particularily if leachate
collection is required, Leachate collection would be nearly impossible.
The site is located on a hillside. The site is not located close to creeks
or lakes with the exception of a small drainage channel that drains through
the site during rainy periods now. The small drainage channel can be inter-
cepted above the landfill and drained elsewhere. It is intermittent and
has no flow or ponds during dry weather.

The site is well protected from wind and currently does not show sig-
nificant amounts of wind blown material either direction from the site, or
in the trees.

The site has potential for being used as a very deep fill, which would
extend its life considerably as a bale fill. The area method of landfill
would be best suited to this site using a tier development.

Leachate control should be accomplished through positive surface seal-
ing of completed landfill areas. It is impossible to say that no leachate
can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would require that substant-
ial steps be taken to provide positive control including very positive sur-
face sealing over completed segments. One set of samples have been taken
at and around the site. The samples shown no significant leachate. Appendix
9-1 shows the results.

Surface drainage can be controlled with an impervious cover and cut-
off drains that shunt the local subsurface drainage off the site before
it can f ind a way into the f ill.

Use of this site has several distinct advantages.
1) The site is already in use as a landfill.
2) Surrounding water uses for consumption or Fish & Wildlife are at
a minimum.
3) A dump can be closed, sealed, and future problems that it may
cause minimized.
4) Surface drainage can be easily controlled.

One major disadvantage does exist. Cover material is not readily avail-
able. Shot rock is currently utilized, which is very expensive. For this
study, we have used the costs of bringing material from the Solone Creek
area, a costly and inconvenient process. It is hoped that a barrow site
near the landfill could be acquired and utilized.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The existing site has good visual and litter control characteristics.
Access is excellent and the best of any of the sites reviewed.

The current operation cannot be classified as a true landfill. Yet
the existing site is not creating a significant nusiance or environmental
hazard. This is in spite of ADEC demands that the site be,,closed.-Oithin
two years.

The site does not have wetlands involvement.

As a result of preliminary review comments by the ADEC, it became
evident that the Agencies involved believed that the existing site is caus-@
ing a serious leachate pollution problem and'should be closed as soon as
possible. In order to further define the actual extent of potential pro-
blems created by leachate, a series of water samples were taken.

The result of the sample program is included as Appendix 9-1. The-re-
sults do not support the contention that serious pollution is occurring.
In fact the chemical analysis show that insignificant changes are occurring.
Therefore, even though the potential for leachate production is indicated,
it does not in fact show up in the test results.

F. Bell Flats West of Fairgrounds

The Bell Flats site west of the fairgrounds is located immediately
adjacent to the fairgrounds and behind it. The site is one of two that
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requested be evaluated.

The site has some wetlands and has a couple of minor streams coursing
through it. A major stream borders the site on the south.

Visual screening between the fairground and the site will require a
substantial buffer of natural vegetation and trees.

In order to use the site as a landfill, two minor streams will have
to be rerouted elsewhere and the area method of landfilling must be used.

Leachate control should be accomplished through positive surface seal-
ing of completed landfill ares. It is impossible to say that no leachate
can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would require that substant-
ial steps be taken to provide positive control including very positive
surface sealing over completed segments.

Soils work has not been done at the site. However, Bell Flats does
have gravel deposits and the area is a major source of the gravel needs
of Kodiak. A small inactive pit in the area indicates that the site may

be underlain by gravel, The Borough has found that muskeg and high silt
zones are intermingled with the good gravel areas, and soils work must be
done at specific sites before development can proceed.

The site is not owned by the Borough and it is anticipated that pub-
lic sentiment may be extremely strong against its use. There are:resident-
ial areas near to both the south and the west.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Bell Flats west of the Fairgrounds site has a major stream just
south of it that is a Salmon stream. The general site shows evidence of
high water debris on portions of it. There are two minor streams that
course through the site. The minor streams appear to be drainage outlets
and do not appear to be fish habitat. However, this has not been confirmed
by ADF&G.

Some of the area involves wetlands and could create potential problems
from localized flooding. With proper design these deficiencies can be min-
imized.

Strongest among the native factors of the site relates to its close
proximity to residential neighborhoods and the fairground. Public accept-
ance would be difficult. A bale fill would have a much better chance of
public acceptance. Wind blown debris should not be a problem at this site.
Leachate control will have the same implication as discussed with Solone
Creek at the Gunnery Range.

G. West Bell Flats

The West Bell Flats site is located generally in the Jack Lake area
in the upper highlands of the mid valley. The site is approximately two
to two and one-half miles from the main highway.

ADEC requested that this site be investigated.

The site is composed of rolling hills with a small lake located in
the middle of it.

ADEC has indicated that they have no objection to the small lake being
drained and the minor drainage pattern that it supports being diverted.
Alaska Fish and Game has not commented on the lake drainage.

Soils conditions in the area are not known. However, a correlation
with similar areas would indicate that they will vary from cobble rocks
through sand and gravel with pockets of silt and muskeg.

Major transportation improvements would be necessary at this site.
The current access through existing development would be totally inade-
quate. The existing roads are not even satisfactory for local subdivision
requirements with the west end being barely better than a.wilderness:--
trail. Roads meeting secondary road standards would be necessary. Chan-
neling major traffic through local neighborhoods is never good and would
be particularily bad for this site because of the hills and curves neces-
sary. The increased traffic, particularily trucks, would meet with major
resistance from the local residents near this site.

The site can be used for either area or trench method of operation.
Site drainage should not be a significant problem.

Leachate control should be accomplished through positive surface
sealing of completed landfill areas. It is impossible to say that no@
leachate can or will be produced. Therefore, this site would require that
substantial steps be taken to provide positive control including very pos-
itive surface sealing over completed segments. Wind blown material may be
a major problem.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The West Bell Flats site is situated in rolling hills with the potent-
ial for a variety of soils conditions. The site is approximately two to
two and one-half miles from the main highway and access will have to go
through existing residential neighborhoods most of the distance.

A small lake exists on the site. While ADEC indicates that the lake
can be drained, the Alaska Fish and Game and several Federal Agencies may
see it quite differently. The area has wetlands and the lake. Any changes
in their status will require a Corps permit. There also is a creek in the
area that will complicate the issues,

The site can be utilized for both trench and an Area method of'operation.
A conventional landfill operation will have windblown material problems.

While the potential leachate generation problems are not as severe
as several of the other sites, they do pose the potential for getting into
existing groundwater and the Salmon stream located to the north of the,
site.

If a loose garbage landfill is utilized, the potential for windblown
litter certainly exists and is more severe for this site than the others
except the Swampy Acres site.

Of all the potential adverse environmental considerations, the traffic
problem is most apparent. It is not good practice to place a site so that
local neighborhoods must absorb significant through traffic. There will
be substantial costs to the community to upgrade the access road and provide
the necessary safety and noise abatement conditions.

M. SITE COMPARISONS

A. Introduction

The sites vary considerably in their characteristics. There are
two (2) basic modes of operation being considered in this study. They
are conventional landfilling and bale landfilling. The sites are evalu-
ated in tabular form and presented in:

1) Table 3-1.Site Suitability Comparison for Conventional landfill
Development. This table looks at each site on aqualitative
basis for its suitability for conventional landfilling. Costs
are not injected, except that they are reflected in the degree
of difficulty to develop the site, and indirectly by the dis-
tance from the community center. Costs will be covered in Chap-
ter Six, Co,st Comparisons.

2) Table 3-2 Site Suitability Comparison for Bale Landfill Develop-
ment. This table looks at each site on a aqualitative basis for
its suitability for a bale landfill operation. As in #1, costs
are not directly injected, but will be covered in Chapter Six.

B. Qualitative Site Ranking

Not all of the sites will remain in the ranking.

1) Conventional Landfill
Solone Creek Gunnery Range 1
Solone Creek on Borough Land 2
Swampy Acres 3

2) Bale Landfill
City of Kodiak Existing Landfill 1
Solone Creek Gunnery Range 2
Solone Creek on Borough Land 3.1

TABLE 3-1
SITE SUITABILITY COMPARISON
FOR CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT
(COSTS NOT INCLUDED)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GENERAL

0 p
0 a4 0 >1
z H 0 P4 E-4 0 E-
:4 0 E-1
14 0
'H' w 0 @4
0 >1 14 @4 La H p @-l
0@ Z' No 1% r4 M Z H
DI M z N
1-1 0 pq 0
U) 44 H E-1 p z U1 E-4 P H W,
z U 0
H 0 w U F1 0 0 H H zo '5:
SITE 0 04U 9C N E04 En U z ri 0 N @c

SOLONE CREEK ON 3 3 10 7 10 7 5 3 6.00
BOROUGH LAND POOR POOR SUPERIOR EXCELLENT SUPERIOR EXCELLENT GOOD POOR GOOD

2. SOLONE CREEK 3 3 10 10 10 7 5 5 6.63
GUNNERY RANGE POOR POOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD EXCELLENT

3. SWAMPY ACRES 10 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 6.00
SUPERIOR GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR GOOD

4. SITE WEST AND 7 3 5 3 5 5 3 1 4.00
ABOVE SWAMPY EXCELLENT POOR GOOD POOR GOOD GOOD POOR BAD POOR
ACRES

5. CITY OF KODIAK 7 10 10 5 1 10 10 10 7.88
EXISTING EXCELLENT SUPERIOR SUPERIOR GOOD BAD SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR BAD
LANDFILL 1

6. BELL FLATS 5 7 3 7 7 5 5 7 5.75
WEST OF GOOD EXCELLENT POOR EXCELLENT EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD EXCELLENT GOOD
FAIRGROUNDS

7. WEST BELL 3 1 1 5 10 7 5 1 4.13
FLATS POOR BAD BAD GOOD SUPERIOR EXCELLENT GOOD BAD BAD

Even though site has an overall rating that'is highest*among sites,
the bad rating for cover removes it from conventional landfill consideration.

Will m

TABLE 3-2
SITE SUITABILITY COMPARISON
FOR BALE LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT

(COSTS NOT INCLUDED)

2 3 4 5 6 7 GENERAL

P4 >4
P4 p

z
z 9 14 E-i rA 0 @4 @4
0 0 ZW 04 @-4 EA F4
ul H H0 0
R m, E"
En rl) @4 E
to p IHn E-, q H
SITE H H w4 PQ w0 H 0 @:)
0 pqw ul pFAQ 0 F4 @-lu W @3: P@ mR4

1. SOLONE CREEK AND 3 3 10 7 10 7 5 6.43
BOROUGH LAND POOR POOR SUPERIOR EXCELLENT SUPERIOR EXCELLENT GOOD EXCELLENT

2. SOLONE CREEK 3 3 10 10 10 7 7 7.14
GUNNERY RANGE POOR POOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT

3. SWAMPY ACRES 10 5 7 7 5 3 3 5.71
SUPERIOR GOOD EXCELLENT EXCELLENT GOOD POOR POOR GOOD

4. SITE WEST AND 7 3 7 5 5 5 5 5.29
ABOVE SWAMPY ACRES EXCELLENT POOR EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD

5. CITY OF KODIAK 7 10 10 7 3 10 10 8.14
EXISTING LANDFILL EXCELLENT SUPERIOR SUPERIOR EXCELLENT POOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR

6. BELL FLATS WEST 5 7 5 7 7 5 5 5.86
OF FAIRGROUNDS GOOD EXCELLENT GOOD EXCELLENT EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD GOOD

7. WEST BELL 3 1 1 5 10 7 5 4.57
FLATS POOR BAD

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER-4
I
I
I
I

CHAPTER 4

CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL REQUIREMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Sanitary landfilling is an engineered method of disposing of solid waste
on land by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting the waste to the
smallest practical volume and covering the waste with soil each day of operation
in a manner which safeguards against environmental pollution.

A sanitary landfill calls for developing a detailed description and plans
that outline the steps to be taken to provide for the safe, efficient disposal
of quantities and types of solid wastes that are expected to be received.
The final plans must outline volume requirements, site improvements (clearing
of the land, construction of roadways and buildings, fences, utilities), and
all the equipment necessary for day-to-day operations of the specific land-
filling method involved.

A plan of construction and operation must include means for controlling
water pollution and the movement of decomposition gas.

A final site and ultimate land use plan must be incorporated.

Achieving the broad objectives set forth under the rainy climate conditions
of Kodiak will be difficult and costly.

11. STATE REQUIREMENTS

The State of Alaska regulates solid waste management under the authority
of regulations published in Register 67, October 1978, 18 ACC Chapter 60,
Solid Waste Management. A copy of the current regulations and the permit
application are included in Appendix 9-2.

Certain very small self contained users are exempt but otherwise all
private and governmental groups must comply with the regulations.

A summary of the key points of the regulation requirements follows:

A. Provide 2 sets of completed application forms.

B. Provide 2 sets of details plans and specifications.

C. Certification of compliance with local ordinances and zoning.

D. Report detailing proposed method of operation, population and
service area, material source, characteristics and quantity,,emergency
operating procedures, type and amount of equipment to be provided,
and ultimate land use plan.

E. A permit shall be valid for a specified period but in no case
exceeding five years.

F. A permit may not be transferred without State consent.

SPECIFIC OPERATING REQUIREMENTS:

A. A permittee shall be required to:

(1) Provide a permanent sign posted at the facility entrance identifying
the facility, the hours and days the facility is open for public
use, the name and address of the operator and other information
pertinent to the operation of the facility;

(2) Provide effective methods, approved by the department, to control
insects, birds, rodents, other disease vectors and nuisance
conditions;

(3) Obtain specific departmental approval for the processing and disposal
of hazardous waste

B. A permittee may be required to:

(1) Compact and cover all solid waste accumulated after each day's
operation with earth or other approved material in an approved
manner safeguarding the environmental quality of the surrounding
area, except that solid waste processed by milling, baling or
other operation, specifically approved by the department, may not
require daily cover;

(2) Install. maintain and operate monitoring equipment, for the detention
of pollution or contamination resulting or tending to result from
the operation of the facility, in accordance with methods and
procedures prescribed by the department, at specified locations
and intervals, and to provide the resulting data to the department;

(3) Provide controlled access to the facility in the form of fences
and gates that shall be kept locked when an attendant Is not on
duty.

(4) Submit quarterly reports itemizing the type and quantity of solid
waste processed, the quantity of waste requiring final disposal,
hours of facility operation and market value of any reclaimed
material.

C. A permittee shall not be required to provide daily cover for solid
waste comprised of mine tailings, gravel pit and quarry spoils or
overburden, but remains responsible for restoring the area by grading,
contouring and seeding in accordance to plans approved by the department.
(Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)

The disposal of solid waste on the land shall comply with the following--
requirements:

(1) The disposal of putrescible waste in areas subject to permafrost or
leachate generation is restricted and shall be allowed only in
conjunction with special procedures approved by the department;

(2) Open burning on a landfill is prohibited;

(3) Solid waste shall be deposited in a manner to prevent waste
materials, leachate or eroded soil particles from entering the
waters of the state;

(4) A minimum separation of two feet shall be maintained between
putrescible solid waste and the anticipated high ground water table;
non-putrescible and non-water-soluble material such as brick
stone, concrete and similar materials may be deposited below the
anticipated high ground water table as such deposition will result
in a nuisance-free.operation and no pollution to the ground waters;

(5) Surface water drainage from areas outside a landfill shall not be
allowed to flow over or through a landfill;

.(6) The working face of a landfill shall be limited to as small.an
area as practicable and designed to confine wind-blown waste,
which shall be collected and returned to the working face:

(7) Scavenging is prohibited;

(8) Uncontrolled live, domestic animals are prohibited within the--
landfill area;

(9) The approach road to a landfill shall be maintained to provide
access and kept clean of solid waste;

(10) Solid waste shall be spread in shallow layers not exceeding a
depth of two feet prior to compaction, completed lifts shall be
no greater than eight feet in vertical depth uriless otherwise
allowed by permit requirements;

(11) Solid waste shall be compacted and covered with earth or other
approved material at a frequency specified by permit requirement;

(12) Within one month after termination of a landfill, or a major
portion thereof, the area shall be covered with at least two feet
of compacted earth material, graded and finished to allow surface
water to run off without erosion; areas completed during winter
operation may receive final cover the following spring;

(13) Ten days prior to removal of earth moving equipment from a completed
landfill, the department shall be notified so that an inspection
may be conducted. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)

III. KODIAK REQUIREMENTS

A. Background

The topography, climate and soil conditions of the Kodiak area make
any form of sanitary landfill operation difficult.

There are two basic approaches to conventional landfill operation. They
are area and trench.

The area method involves spreading solid wastes on the existing ground
surface and covering with material from elsewhere. The area method works
best where hills are available nearby to provide a source of cover material.

The trench method requires that a trench be dug first so that solid
wastes may then be placed. The removed material is utilized for intermediate
and final cover.

The two methods definitely have advantages and disadvantages. For Kodiak,
the area method advantages far outstrip the trench method.

The most serious problem the trench method has comes from water standing
around the solid waste. In a rainy climate, it is nearly impossible to
overcome the disadvantages of the trench method.

B. Specific

The sites vary in conditions but the basic requirements of landfill
operation will not change.

(1) Site Preparation

The site must be prepared to minimize leachate production, guarantee
access, provide suitable cover, and allow long term workability.

The most important factor of site preparation is leachate control.
Particularly in a wet climate like Kodiak, it is extremely important to cut
off any potential groundwater intrusion, divert surface water away from the
site, and to seal any bottom soil surface that has a high permeability.
While it is no fun to deal with leachate, it is much easier to handle leachate
in a landfill with a sealed bottom than one that allows a major ground water
flow to get involved. It is particuldrily important to take positive steps
to exclude water from the fill.

Groundwater can be lowered around the site by cutting trenches, backfilling
them with coarse gravel, and running the trench to daylight or to a sump
where the water can be pumped away if necessary. Surface trenches and/or
grading should be accomplished to keep surface water away from the site.

(2) Site Access

The site must be maintained in a manner that assures safe access
by the users, This means roadway and/or loading areas that can be safely
driven on. In the Kodiak area this stipulation means that all surfaces
where vehicles must travel will require gravel or other suitable material
that drains well and stays firm during rainy weather. A.lockable entrance
gate should be installed.

(3) Leachate Control

Leachate control takes four forms.

First, groundwater must be kept out of the fill. This can be accomplished
with sealants under and around the fill and curtain drains. The curtain
-drains lower the groundwater locally thus keeping it out of the fill.

Second, surface water must be kept out of the fill. This can be
accomplished by sealing the top of the-fill, sloping the surface*to encourage
runoff away from the fill, and provision of diversion drainage around the
fill.

Third, leachate produced can be recirculated through the fill to treat
and manage its quantity.

Fourth-, leachate treatment and discharge depends on the permit require-
ments set forth by,the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

(4) Site Access Control

The site must be sufficiently fenced to prevent use and access at times
other than the normal operating hours. The fence does not need to be around
the entire site if natural terrain limits access.

(5) Landfill Cover

The landfill operation must be managed to minimize the amount of fill
area open during the daily operation. A facility operated in strict
accordance with ADEC regulations will utilize daily and final cover amounting
to a quantity approximately one-third the volume of solid wastes disposed of.
Ideally, two types of cover should be available. A silt or clay material
should be used to seal the surface just above the solid wastes and a sandy
gravel cover over the silt or clay is needed to make the site workable for
further disposal.

The,cover has two extremely important functions. It must seal the surface
above the solid wastes to prevent the formation of leachate and it must
prevent vermon from using the fill for habitat.

It may be more expedient and feasible to use a plastic sealer for both
the intermediate and-final sealer. @-If plastic is used the design has to take
long range plastic protection into account to assure a reasonable seal. The
daily consistency of construction of landfill cells and cell compaction is
very important. Solid waste is not@a homogenous material, therefore, differ-
ential settlement will occur even under the best of construction practices.

Settlement also occurs because of waste decomposition, filtering of
fines, breaking down of bridging over voids and general settlement because
of increased weight loading. Any sealant or liner that performs as a sealer
must be flexible and be able to take differential settlement. Low places
and holes in the liner will occur. It is important that the basic landfill
design, sequence of cell construction and day-to-day operation strive to
reduce the impact that leaks can have when they occur. All potential water
flow must move down slope on the cell and out to the landfill edge. The
landfill itself has a great deal of "bed" capacity for absorbing water and
holding it.

(6) Landfill Equipment

The degree of landfill compaction is dependent on the type of wastes
that enter the fill, the depth that each layer is spread out, the weight
of equipment utilized, and the number of times the equipment track or wheel
passes over the material.

A steel wheeled tractor provides the best compaction. However, it is
a specialized piece of equipment that does not double for other purposes.
A track loader with a four in-one bucket in the Cat D-6 or larger category
is more versatile and will provide good results. Other earth moving
equipment is necessary, but it may be cheaper to lease the equipment or
contract for the service as necessary.

Cover material must be delivered to the site or moved from one location
on site to another. It is more efficient to use earth moving trucks and
scrapers for this purpose.

(7) Scheduling

The landfill should only be open when an attendant is at the site.
The attendant can double as an equipment operator, as is often done with
smaller facilities.

If the Kodiak community decides to utilize a drop box system, the
landfill does not need to be open for public use as frequently or for
as long a period of time. A drop box is nothing more than a giant garbage
can placed at a convenient location.

(8.) Landfill Closure

Eventually every landfill faces closure when completed.

If operated properly over the life of the fill, the closure operation
should not be exceedingly expensive.

(a) The landfill should be sealed and a minimum of 2 feet of final
cover placed over the sealing layer. The earth material should
form a tight soil mantel.

(b) The total landfill should be landscaped to encourage drainage
off from, and away from the site. The drainage design should
route water off the site by the shortest possible distance.

(d) The closure should be publicized with the new landfill location
given heavy media coverage.

(e) An alternate final site plan and site use should be adopted and
implemented.

(f) For the first year after the site is closed, it should be
secured with a fence and locked gate so that potential users
cannot gain unauthorized access. A prominent sign should give
clear directions to the new disposal facility.

(g) A fill that has not been operated in strict accordance with
sanitary landfill practices may have several difficult problems
that must be dealt with.

First, rats and other vermin may be present in large populations.
Rats in particular are very tenaceous and will seek other habitat for
survival. They must be exterminated prior to closure and the process
must be handled by a professional.

Second, the site has probably not been properly compacted and
graded. Leachate may continue to occur for long periods after the
closure. The leachate may require treatment, even extensive treatment
and therefore be an on-going cost for a long period of time.

In the case of the existing Kodiak fill, it appears completely
feasible to close out the existing fill without requiring extensive
long range leachate processing.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I -

'CHAPTER 5

BALER FACILITY AND LANDFILL

1. INTRODUCTION

There are some very significant advantages to a baler and baled
landfill for a wet climate such as Kodiak's. Wastes are collected at a
central location and processed under controlled conditions in a building.
Transfer stations and/or drop boxes can be utilized for the convenience
of the Coast Guard and rural residents in the Kodiak area.

A baler compacts solid waste to nearly twice the density that
can be achieved in a well operated sanitary landfill. Furthermore the-bales
are consistent, while the density in a landfill will vary with the weather,
the operators attitude, and equipment condition. Like hay bales, the solid
waste bales are quite resistant to water penetration.

In the Kodiak area, two factors will almost totally dominate the
operation cost comparison for the landfill. The two factors are:
A. Leachate control
B. Suitable and adequate cover material supply

A bale fill does not require nearly as much cover material. The
largest savings come in the arena of intermediate cover material require-
ments. The overall cover requirements are approximately one fifth to one
quarter the requirements for a conventional sanitary landfill.

11 BALER FACILITY

There are basic considerations that must be addressed in the design
of any baler facility, regardless of size. Those factors are:

A. Site access and traffic control.

1) The general location should minimize travel distance for a
majority of users.

2) The general location should minimize the adverse impact of truck
traffic through residential neighborhoods.

3) The site entrance should be at a safe location with adequate
signs and/or traffic signals to assure safe entrance and exit.

4) An area for waiting vehicles to park should be provided and in
such a manner as to provide smooth traffic flow into the facility.

5) Depending on the operator's approach to fees, a gate weighing
and/or collection facility may be necessary.

6) The building must be designed for drive through traffic and must
have room for vehicles to back up to the unloading area and dis-
charge their wastes.

7) The building must provide drive through capabilities for com-
mercial haulers so that they may efficiently unload and leave
the building. If 20 to 40 cubic yard drop boxes are utilized
at remote sites and the Coast Guard location, the clear ceiling
height will have to be set in accordance with the required
height for box dumping. This is normally in the range of 24
feet of clear height. The traffic pattern within the building
takes on a much greater importance when the facility must handle
a large volume of small user traffic while accommodating the
commercial haulers at higher capacity.

8) The facility must have space set aside for bale storage. This
can best be handled by providing space for a forklift to operate
efficiently and/or a trailer to be loaded. Once a trailer is
loaded, it can be tarped and parked at the facility or taken to
the landfill.

9) A small office is necessary and should be located where fees are
collected if a fee system is in use.

In order to demonstrate the concepts discussed as they apply to
Kodiak, look at figures 5-1 and 5-2. Figure 5-1 shows a typical site
plan for a baling facility located in Kodiak.

A baling facility does not involve significant noise. A facility can
be located in any of the commercial/industrial areas without becoming a
bad neighbor. Figure 5-2 shows a facility floor plan that will meet the
needs of Kodiak.

M. PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS

The baler is a stationary unit having physical characteristics re-
sembling a giant compactor. The wastes are wire tied after being compres-
sed with equipment similar to that used in the field of hay baling.

The bales produced are very compact and quite resistant to breakage
with handling. The American Solid Waste Systems model HRB-SWC-2 produces
a bale 45" x 30" x 66" and an average bale weight of 2200 pounds. Just
about anything that can go into a charging chamber 56" x 111" can be baled.
Scottsboro, Alabama reports bale average weights-of-2,.600,@pounds using
an HRB-SWC-2. Very little loose garbage gets involved and it is contained
within the building at the process area.

The actual baling process does not take long for the wastes generated
in a community the size of Kodiak. Scottsboro, Alabama is a community of
13,600. They generate 35 to 40 tons of solid waste per day. It is pro-
cessed into twenty eight bales weighing 2600 pounds per bale. They use
a 11-2t6n single axle truck that carries eight bales per load. It makes
three to four trips per day.

The town of Torrington, Wyoming with a population of 6000 and Cbadr.on,
Nebraska also population 6000 have installed balers. They have found the
bale facility to be a one-man operation. Chadron collects 18 loads at
20 cubic yards per load and allows citizen hauled material at their facility
which processes 55 bales per week. Considering all costs, including equip-
ment, utility costs, and manpower, they have found the bale fill to be
cheaper than a conventional landfill.

The bales will vary in weight, depending on the characteristics of
the waste being baled including amount of metal and moisture. The weight
can vary from 600 pounds for dry corrigated paper to two tons for metal
such as old appliances. This amounts to densities varying from 314 to
2094 pounds per cubic yard.

IV. BALE FILL

The construction and management,-of a bale landfill is quite different than
a conventional-landfill. It is much more like stacking baled hay.- The bales
are delivered to the site on a. flat bed or semi trailer truck. Atront end
loader equipped with a fork lift assembly is u@ed to unload'the bales and place
them in the landfill stack,, The equipment does not need to be extremely heavy
duty and it does not receive the routine rough use that conventional land-
fill equipment does. A very tight and consistant landfill can be laid up.
Normally, the bales are stacked one on top of the next to a height of
three and up to six bales depending on the type of fork lift in use. Inter-
mediate cover is necessary, therefore, a fill set at five bales per lift
will minimize the impact of daily cover. Also, it may be advantageous
to use a stacking scheme similar to that shown in figure 5-3, The advant-
age of the approach shown in 5-3 is that it ties the bales together and
reduces the leachate drainage paths through the fill.

An area type of fill is preferred for a bale fill. Six to eight
inches of interim cover should be placed over the bale fill, with
24 to 30 inches used on the final course. The specific details of the inter-
mediate and final cover system are discussed under leachate control.

V. LEACHATE CONTROL

Webster's Dictionary defines Leach as "to extract (a soluble substance)
from some materials" and "to lose soluble material through a filtering
liquid". Stated another way, leachate is the contaminated water which
discharges from the refuse disposal area.

With a. cconventional landfill, leachate cannot be produced- until the
refuse has reached saturation or field capacity. In the case of the con-
ventional landfill saturation requires substantial quantities of external
water.

A general concept which may be applied to leachate production is the
law of conservation of matter. More specifically, any water which enters
the refuse after it has reached field capacity must displace an equal amount
of water which has been in contact with the waste. The displaced water
will be contaminated with materials leached from the wastes.

Work done at the University of Minnesota demonstrated that different
mechanics occur when water enters a bale fill. It is worthwhile to quote
an important finding of their work. "More important for the description
of the fluid motion through the bale fill is the form and-nature of.-the-flow
spaces, which should resemble large planar openings between bales much
like flow spaces in fractured limestone, for example. "Interspace width
varies between 2 and 4 cm. approximately. This has implications for spec-
ific yield, through flow and residence times. In large openings of this
kind no effective capillary forces are at work and therefore specific
retention will be negligible, flow velocities are high and therefore the
reaction to a precipitation and infiltration event will be rapid. On the
other hand, retention times will be low allowing for only short contact
and chemical reaction times between the percolating water and the wastes.
Hence, a leachate of lower strength should be produced as compared to
conventional leachates." "Sampling of baled material has shown that very
little change from the original water content of the bales occurs with
time, and that there is no significant increase in moisture content.
This seems to indicate that although field capacity of the bales had not
been reached at the time of compression, very little percolating water
enters the bales and their permeability is practically zero. Such a con-
clusion is consistent with the findings of other workers (Eifert and
Swartzbaugh, 1977) that indicate low moisture retention for baled solid
waste."

The bale itself contributes substantially to leachate control. Adding
to the basic safety provided by a bale fill, the following procedures should
be utilized:

A. Intercept and divert ground waters prior to their contact with
refuse. Figure 5-4 shows a cut-off drain system.

B. Intercept and drain surface water as rapidly and completely as
possible to control infiltration.

C. Intermediate and final cover sealants. In a rainy climate, it
is far more important to seal the top of a landfill than it is
to provide a bottom seal. There are several ways to provide the
seal. Figure 5-5 shows several methods.

VI. NON BALEABLE MATERIAL DISPOSAL

A. Construction Wastes

Bulky and heavy material from constructior. projects do not need
to be baled prior to disposal. However, the material should be segregated
and disposed of in a separate area of the landfill or at a different land-
fill site. Conventional landfill practices should be utilized for the
disposal of bulky and heavy construction wastes. The area should be con-
trolled, the materials compacted, and daily cover provided.whenever the
wastes can be either windblown or provide vermin harborage.

Land clearing wastes should be disposed of at a separate site. They
are bulky, hard to compact and do not demand the same care in placement
as do other types of wastes.

B. Junk Vehicles and Machinery

Any marketable scrap metal should be disposed of in that manner.
Non-marketable junk vehicles and machinery should be disposed of in a
designated area of the landfill or at a separate facility. They should
be compressed as best possible with a dozer or other heavy machinery and
then covered with dirt. Junk vehicles and machinery may create signifi-
cant leachate problems if not handled properly including isolation from
ground and surface waters. The sealant over this class of landfill is
equally as important as the sealant over the bale fill. This subject
is covered much more fully in Chapter 7.

CO >
z
0
m

own o
rl,4

v I TQ R.. P K G
.. .. .. . .....
P A R

...........

m r

..........

Omni

....... ........
WN
09" Pg-
m OD

. . . . . . . . . .

L ----------------------------------

C"
0

WDOX0
Ommmr,
x .0 - rr, M
rnQG)> am
cozmxm > Co
.<t)M-i
- noo Zo I N D I V I D U A L
coi>xz -O< _4 z
-1 -qr-4 a0 mz
MOM co m > U 8 E RT R A 7 F I C
m m z m m
0 -4 - -I.., xr
cz wo:;4tm
>
00 Mm x 0
m
m 0
0 0

z
G)
m
"n
> w

c r I r

0
>
r
0
0 0 A L E
m m
r m FORKLIFT

I N D I V I I? U A L
<3
0 U 8 E@R T R A F F I C
EE

-2 3unow

ONIMOVIS 3AIIVNU311V

bi
NI apsoyl

.... ......

7:. S.

Z./r

.0c

199

r-Ditch sloped to
Discharge Point Optional Gas Vent

Topsoil

7IR

ipacted Cover Ma
3 -T, q ONIN
q
g
..t
gg-

Gravel-

a.P
Ptone....
4

..0..,0..0..0

Ground
Water
eb
Movement

%6@@ nre),
Pipe sloped to Drain
0

HIGH GROUND & SURFACE WATER CONTROL IN PERMIABLE SOIL

FIGURE 5-4

Grass Slope: 2% min.

24
30 mil @XXX:, Sand
Hypalon
Chlorinated Compacted
Polyethelene MANUFACTURED MEMBRANE Sand

Slope 2% min.
Gr a

...........
lx@0

. ......... .
b.1
sq. ft. S.G.S.
40 Bentonite
mixed to a depth
of 6" and compacted
BtNTONITE

Grass Slope: 2% min.
L -
01" min

CLAYEY SOIL

FINAL COVER ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE.6-6

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 6
1
1
1
1

CHAPTER 6

SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL

1. INTRODUCTION

The City of Kodiak provides all the sewage treatment for the urban
area, both in and outside the City. The sewage treatment plant is a second-
ary facility utilizing the activated biofilter process. Sludge is drawn
rom the main system and placed in an aerobic digester. The digested@l
sludge is dewatered with a centrifuge. The City wastewater treatment
f

staff has demonstrated that sludge having a solids concentration of 15
to 18% by weight can be produced by the centrifuge. However, the existing
conveyor system cannot handle sludge at that thickness and the sludge
must be diluted to convey it. The City is currently evaluating their
alternatives at the Wastewater Plant. As related to sludge disposal,
the City has four (4) major options for final disposal.

A. Outfall Disposal
The C.ity might lime tteat*the@digested sludge to disinfect it
and then inject it into the outfall for disposal. This scheme
has not been approved by either the ADEC or EPA. The approach
does have considerable merit. It eliminates the cost of cent-
rifuge processing and eliminates the need for sludge disposal at
some on-shore facility.

B. Land Disposal
Land disposal could be attractive if the distance to suitable
grassland were less. A one way haul distance of 40 miles sub-
stantially increases the cost of this alternative. However, the
approach has not been eliminated by the City.

C. Landfill Disposal
Kodiak has a rainy climate. It certainly does not rain as much
or as intensily as occurs in Southeast Alaska, but the climate
is adverse to landfill disposal of sludge. In-order to make
sludge landfilling work, extreme care and precautions must be
taken to assure that both ground and surface water are excluded
from the fill. The landfill approach appears to be the least
costly alternative if ocean disposal is outlawed.

D. Incineration
Sludge is basically water, even at a peak of 18% solids thickened
condition, 82% of the weight is water. It takes a lot of energy
to evaporate water, and that must occur before the organic solids
in the sludge can burn. Sludge incineration may become the only
game in town for the City of Kodiak and under those conditions
the City fathers would have to give it serious consideration.
Otherwise, it is not a serious contender from a cost standpoint.

In three of the City's options, the solid waste must be disposed of
on land. The overall solid waste disposal program should consider the
available options for solid waste disposal. Of the four City options,
two require landfilling sludge or incinerator ash.

11. SEWAGE SLUDGE LANDFILLING

If the Kodiak area sewage sludge is to be landfilled, it must be done
with extreme caution and done in a manor that avoids future problems.
Sludge is mostly water and has a strong affinity to absorb more water if.
given the chance.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requires that
special provisions be made for the landfilling of processed sewage sludge.
The ADEC requires that the sludge be concentrated to a minimum of 15%
solids. As stated in the Introduction to this Chapter, the City currently
has the basic equipment to concentrate the sludge to the minimum level,
however, the current plant configuration does not allow it to be delivered
to a truck at that concentration. Furthermore, a centrifuge operating at
15 to 18% solids level may not consistently provide the 15% concentration
level if conditions change. Other Alaska plants utilizing centrifuges
only get 11 to 12% solids.

The City and Borough of Juneau Mendenhall Sewage Treatment Plant
has the same treatment process as Kodiak. The Mendenhall system utilizes
a belt filter for sludge dewatering instead of a centrifuge. Thev@get
18 to 20% solids concentration and produce 9 to 10 cubic yards of sludge per
day (7 days/wk).from a-sewage treatment plant-opeirating at,l@to 4 mgd depend-
ing.on-:the weather. Kodiak can expect &-to 10 cubic yards of dewatered sludge
per.day. Juneau.currently operates a'sludge landfill, but-is.congidering
going to land disposal. Their landfill utilizes a trench method and does
not have positive surface sealing.. Several points learned at the Juneau
sludge landfill are:

A. Sludge (even at 15 to 18% solids) cannot be worked but must be
placed carefully and covered with substantial quantities of binder
material. Even with the binder material it cannot be traveled
on with heavy trucks.

B. A trench method cannot be utilized, particularily not in a wet
climate with tight soils around the trench. It'is impossible
to keep water out of the trench and the sludge becomes an impos-
sible mud bath.

C. The top surface must be sealed, with surface and ground water
being kept away from the sludge. If there is any chance of
ground water coming up under the fill, the bottom must also be
sealed.

Any leachate that is produced from a sewage sludge landfill can be
expected to have a high BOD/COD strength and probably will require treat-
ment. While there are heavy metals in sewage sludge, it is not anticipated
that they would provide a problem serious enough to require physical-
chemical treatment to remove them.

Ill. KODIAK PROGRAM

A. Baseline Conditions

The City must first decide what method of sludge processing and dis-
posal best meets their needs. If the method is landfill disposal then
this plan must provide the mechanism for implimentation. If it is ocean
or land, the plan is not affected. If the City chooses incineration, the
plan is only affected in a minor way. Ash would have to be disposed of.

The Kodiak solid waste plan presents two methods for landfilling.
Both methods are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. In Chapter
3 the various sites are discussed and the number of sites is narrowed down
to three (3) sites for conventional landfill and three (3) for bale fill
consideration.

The sites are:

1) Conventional Landfill:
Solone Creek Gunnery Range
Solone Creek on Borough Land
Swampy Acres

2) Bale Landfill
City of Kodiak Existing Landfill
Solone Creek Gunnery Range
Solone Creek on Borough Land

B. Kodiak Plan

While the City has not selected a method for sludge disposal, it is
absolutely necessary that this plan addresses the procedures for sludge
landfill so that it can be implimented if necessary.

The site and type of landfill practice selected for the Kodiak alrea
will have bearing on the specific management method of sludge landfilling.

It is therefore necessary to consider two basic plans for landfilling
sludge. In both cases, the plan must place primary importance on sealing
the sludge away from the wet surrounding environment.

At 8 cubic yards of dewatered sludge per day, the community has
2,920 cubic yards per year to be concerned with. This represents 1/10
of an acre, six feet deep per year

For a number of reasons, it will be important to keep the sludge land-
fill completely separate from the general solid waste landfill.

Two options will be discussed. They are:

1) Both landfill operations at the same general site.
If the community elects to use either of the Solone Creek
sites, both the solid waste landfill and the sludge land-
fill should be located at the same general site. This
allows for increased security plus joint use of equipment,
manpower, and management services.

2) Landfill operations at separate sites.
If the solid waste landfill is located at the City of Kodiak
existing landfill or the Swampy Acres site, the sewage sludge
landfill must be located elsewhere. Neither site is accept-
able for a sewage sludge landfill operation.

The sewage sludge landfill must be constructed a certain way and be
operated in a manner that assures that water will not enter the system. The
two sites at Solone Creek have the necessary ingredients to allow effective
landfill disposal

C. Construction Requirements

1) Bottom Seal. The bottom seal can be clay, tight s'ilt, chlor-
inated polyethylene, or hypolon. The bottom seal must be con-
tinuous and durable enough to allow vehicles to travel on it.

2) Side berms must be provided to contain the sludge and protect
it from erosion, sloughing, etc. The trench method of fill oper-
ation can not be utilized. Trouble is guaranteed if the trench
method is tried. The bottom should slope to the sides and the
side slope to a sump so that seepage can be collected and either
ponded for treatment or discharged to surrounding land as land
application disposal.

3) The fill must be completed as quickly as possible, therefore
it is imperative that the facility be laid out so that segments,
say on a weekly basis, can be closed out. Interim weather pro-
tection must be provided so that water will not get into the
active fill. This can be provided by using a heavy duty chlor-
inated polyethylene sheet that later becomes the top sealer.

4) Top Seal. It is imperative that the top be sealed, therefore,
a heavy duty chlorinated polyethylene cover should be provided.
Along with the plastic cover, the final cover should be construct-
ed to assure longevity. The facility manager is not going to
want to go back in and make major repairs or worse yet have to
redo substantial sections.

Items 1 through 4 can be adapted to an operation quite similar
to earthen silo systems used in the farm country to produce silage.
Figure 6-1 shows a prospective view of the construction approach
recommended. Figure 6-2 shows sections of the bottom seal and the
final cover with top seal.

Operdtion Requirements

1) Water, both ground and surface, must be kept out of the active
and completed sludge landfill.

2) The operation must be planned so that tractors or other vehicles
do not run on the fill until the final cover is completed and
then the traffic must be minimized.

3) The active area or face of the landfill must be protected after
each filling operation with a thin layer of dirt and a plastic
cover.

These steps are important to insure a fill that creates a minimum
of problems.

CHLOR114ATED POLYETHELENE COVER
ROLLED BACK FOR FILLING

SEE FIG. 6-2 FOR DETAIL

. . . . .. . . . . . .

WORKING FACE SLOPED . . ...... .
JUST ENOUGH TO HOLD
44

:=Mm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A(on@

SEE FIG 6-2
FOR DETAIL

U"DERDRAIN
TO SUMP

SLUDGE LANDFILL SILO
FIGURE 6-1

r
CLEAN SAND OR
GRAVELIN
DRAINAGE TRENCH

FILTEIR
FABRC

AA
ns:
U.R TFQN V
m;
14
u. 4Z*@
nw-
A
z7
Ail.
ONE

BOTTOM SECTION CONSTRUCTION

IF GRAVEL IS USED IT MAY NOT
CONTAIN SHARP OR LARGE ROCKS
/ / V/ A \ / / 0 \4 / @ / N \ /
A

D-
.2 G. Fj

D,
N.Ut 'OYE M QYS p- 0. jo
C. 0 N't t to

V
A

TOP SECTION CONSTRUCTION

TOP -& BOTTOM SECTION SCHEMATICS
FIGURE 6-2

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 7
1
I
I
I .

CHAPTER 7

JUNK AUTO AND SCRAP METAL DISPOSAL

1. INTRODUCTION

Kodiak Island's economy -s heavily biased toward fishing and the
fish processing industry. Tourism also has impact on the area. Govern-
ment activities for various levels of government have major impact on
the economy,

Kodiak Island's remoteness from the Alaska Transportation hub and
Alaska's remoteness from the contiguous United States creates substantial
difficulties for marketing recovered resources.

Except for high grade scrap, it has only been in the last few years
that junk autos and scrap metal could be marketed successfully in the
Anchorage area. The junk auto recycling business has historically had
to be subsidized in the Greater Anchorage Area.

The Municipality of Anchorage has had an active program to recycle
junk autos for more than ten years. The program has never been able to
stand on its own financially. The Municipality of Anchorage currently
pays ABC recycling $57.50 per vehicle ($75/vehicle for Girdwood). Not
all the junk vehicles are towed at municipal expense. Vehicles brought
in by private parties are priced according to value or cost for disposal
depending on the vehicle.

Anchorage currently generates about 4000 to 6000 junk vehicles annual-,,,
ly. At the current time, transportation to the Seattle market poses the
major obstacle. Vehicles are bringing $50/ton with freight and handling
costing $44/ton. Six dollars per ton is not enough margin for risk,
handling and overhead, to say nothing about the costs of towing, storage,
processing, and profit. It is obvious that freight alternatives are nec-
essary if recycling of junk autos is to be viable.

11. KODIAK

The Kodiak Borough is currently developing a program for the disposal
of junk autos. Borough planning has a grant from Environmental Conservation
to initiate the program. As outlined by planning personnel, the program
includes:

A. Identification and tagging of junk vehicles
B. Towing to impound areas
C. Impounding and storage
D. Sale if value exceeds $200.00
E. Processing
F. Salvage sale

The Borough is currently concentrating on the development of the
mechanisms to take care of the first four items. At the present time,
Kodiak Auto Wrecking (Smokey Stover) is.taking care of getting the vehi-
cles crushed. In the past, the vehicles have been buried on Borough land
approximately one mile north of the City limits. Kodiak Auto Wrecking
has recently arranged to have an auto crusher brought into Kodiak period-
ically to process the vehicles on hand. Mr. Stover believes that the
market for junk autos will improve, that he can salvage enough value out
of the vehicles, and that he can solve the transportation problems so
that the Borough will not have to subsidize the operation once the vehi-
cles are delivered to his facility.

Kodiak Auto Wrecking also handles other scrap metals. It appears
that the junk auto and scrap metal disposal requirements may be minimized
through the efforts of the Borough and Kodiak Auto Wrecking. In the event
that salvage is totally impractical because of a depressed market, the
community should have the means for disposal locally. There are three
ways that the community can insure proper junk vehicle disposal. They
are: A. Subsidize the recycling as is currently done in Anchorage

B. Obtain a State permit to dispose of junk autos and non-market-
able scrap at the same landfill as other community solid wastes.
If this alternative is used, the landfill plan must recognize
the need for special handling.

C. Provide a separate landfill for junk autos and non-marketable
scrap metal. Any landfill must have a State permit to operate.
In order to get a State permit, all of the steps, stipulations
and requirements set forth in Chapter 4 are necessary.

According to Mr. Stover, the Greater Kodiak Area is currently producing
1 and one-half to two junk vehicles per day but the aumber can be expected
to increase into the range of two to four per day. At two per day that
represents 130 per year.

Each junk auto represents a crushed volume of four and one-half cubic
yards. The annual volume is 3,285 yards of crushed autos plus twenty five
percent for cover or a total of 4,100 cubic yards. This represents 0.85
acres three feet deep. A ten year accumulation of nearly three acres 10
feet deep can be expected if all junk vehicles must be disposed of locally.
Obviously, the Borough should continue its efforts to encourage salvage
and recycle. However, a contingency plan is always in order.

If the community intends to continue to utilize Kodiak Auto Wrecking
and the existing junk vehicle landfill site, the operating agent for the
overall solid waste disposal program should initiate steps to acquire
State permits and develop all long range plans necessary to the landfill
operation.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 8
1
1
1
I

CHAPTER 8

COST COMPARISONS

1. INTRODUCTION

Cost comparisons are developed in this chapter for six landfill systems.
There are three conventional landfills and three balefills. They are:

A. Conventional Landfills

1. Solone Creek Gunnery Range
2. Solone Creek on Borough Land
3. Swampy Acres

B. Bale Landfills

1. City of Kodiak Existing Landfill
2. Solone Creek Gunnery Range
3. Solone Creek on Borough Land

The cost comparisons will involve three major cost categories. They are:

A. Capital Costs

1. Engineering, planning, and administration of construction.
2. Site development in preparation.
3. Any trenches, berms, pump stations, or other equipment necessary
for leachate control

4. Environmental monitoring systems and wells.
5. Process systems costs
6. Transfer station costs
7. Transfer tractor and drop box costs
8. Landfill equipment costs.

B, Operation Costs

1. Manpower
2. Utilities
3. Equipment fuel and maintenance'
4. Cover material and transportation
5. Sealer materials
6. Subsidy for wreck auto salvage
7. Equipment depreciation

C. Life cycle costs

1. Capital@costs amortized over useful life.

2. Operation costs extended at net effective interest rates.
(Actual Interest minus inflation)

3. Site closure costs required.

.11. CONVENTIONAL LANDFILLS

Kodiak's rainy climate, wind and general lack of high quality cover
material makes site selection complicated and the risks of unforeseen future
operating costs high. In order to minimize those dangers, area fills
with general mounding design, positive top surface seals, and curtain drain
cutoff systems are recommended as appropriate to the particular area..

A. Solone Creek Gunnery Range

The gunnery range is generally a very good site. It has a foundation
of silty soil, does not have a groundwater problem, and should allow long
term operation without running into leachate control problems. The area,
is extremely flat with the exception of a man-made mound. The general site
does have some area that will probably be classified as wetland, thus requiring
Corps permit.

Critical Improvements:

1. Access road. There is approximately 1.6 miles of trail to the
site that must be upgraded substantially to handle two way traffic
safely.

2. Some site clearing will be required. It is minimal.

3. A peripheral drain must be provided and the landfill area should be
isolated with a berm enclosure. The berm can serve several purposes,
including drainage control, visual access, and wind blown litter
reduction.

4. Initial cover supply. It is extremely important to have a one year
cover supply at the site to assure that proper cover practices
are initiated from the start.

5. Equipment specifically equipped for landfill operation.

6. A facility for equipment storage and maintenance.

7. Site security with a fence.and locking gate.

8. Positive final cover seal.

Table 8-1 develops capital costs for the site.

Table 8-4 develops the operation costs for the site as a loose garbage
landfill.

B. Solone Creek Borough Land

The Borough land recommended lies directly east of the Gunnery Range.
it is a reasonable site, but does present more difficult conditions for
development and operation than the Gunnery Range. Portions of the site will
definitely fall in the wetlands category and require that a Corps permit be.-
obtained.
Critical Improvements:

1. Access road. There is approximately 1.2 miles of trail to the site
that must be upgraded substantially to handle two way traffic
safely.

2. Approximately one half of the site will require clearing.

3. Peripheral drainage must be provided and the landfill-are should be
isolated with a berm enclosure. The berm can serve several purposes,
including drainage control, visual access, and wind blown litter
reduction,

4. Initial cover supply. It is extremely important to have a one
year cover supply at the site to assure that proper cover practices
are initiated from the start.

5. Equipment specifically equipped for landfill operation.

6. A facility for equipment storage and maintenance.

7. Site security with a fence and locking gate.

8. Positive final cover seal.

Table 8-2 develops the capital costs for this site when used as a
conventional loose garbage landfill.

Table 8-4 develops the operation costs for the site as a loose garbage
landfill.

C. Swampy Acres

The swampy acres site would have to be developed on the west and north
side of the existing lake. The site will be the most difficult site to develop.
Portions of the site will definitely fall in the wetlands category and require
that a Corps permit be obtained.

Critical Improvements:

1. Access road. There is approximately one half mile of new road
that will need to be developed.

2. Approximately two-thirds of the site will require clearing and
preparation.

3. Peripheral drainage must be provided and the landfill area should
be isolated with a berm enclosure. The berm serves for drainage
control, visual access, and wind blown litter reduction.

4. Initial cover supply. It is extremely important to have a one
year cover supply at the site to assure that proper cover practices
are initiated from the start.

5. Equipment specifically equipped for landfill operation.

1, A facility for equipment storage and maintenance.

7. Site security with a fence.

8. Positive final cover seal.

Table 8-3 develops the capital costs for this site when used as a
conventional loose garbage landfill.

Table 8-4 develops the operation costs for the site as a loose gatbage
landfill.

Ill. BALER FACILITY

A. Baler Faci-lity

The baler facility should be located in or on the edge of the City of
Kodiak. One of the benefits of the facility will be its accessibility.
The costs are generated based on the configuration recommended in Chapter 5.
Table 8-6 gives the cost estimate.

B. Transfer Stations

In addition to the baler facility, drop box transfer stations should
be considered for the area at the Coast Guard and the rural area of Bell
Flats. A cost estimate will be developed and included.

All a transfer station amounts to is a-site.where a,.-large 40 cubic yard
trash box can be left for people to use. The site should have a bulkhead
along side the trash box and a dirt and gravel approach ramp for the conven-
ience of users.

More elaborate systems can be used including enclosed box and loading areas
for user convenience, but they are not normally necessary. In Kodiak a
basic metal structure that provides rain protection might make sense. The
estimates in Table 8-5 are for both basic and enclosed transfer stations.

IV. BALE LANDFILLS

Kodiak's rainy climate, wind and general lack of high quality cover
material all work to make a baling operation more attractive for Kodiak.
One major area that has not and probably cannot be quantified in the cost
estimates is the potential costs associated with the risks of unforeseen
future operation costs. This is particularly true related to leachate treat-
ment if it were to become necessary.

A. Renovation of City of Kodiak Existing Site

The existing site has a considerable number of good voints, such as,
visual isolation, wind protection, no wetlands, ease of environme'ntal isolation
and current public acceptance. It has one major detrimental factor. Cover
material is not available in the area. The City has had to resort to shot
rock for cover. Shot rock is a very poor cover because it does not.seal the
landfill.

Major Improvements Needed Are:

1. Some minor site clearing.

2. Rerouted surface drainage around the site.

3. Minor access road improvements.

4. Initial cover supply. It is extremely important to have a one
year cover supply at the site to assure that proper cover practices
are initiated from the start.

5. Existing site must be properly closed. First, the site must be
properly prepared to serve as a foundation for a balefill and
secondly by sealing it, the potential for leachate production is
reduced.

6. Equipment specifically equipped for bale landfill operation.

7. A facility for equipment storage and maintenance.

8. Site security with fence where necessary and locking gate system.

9. Positive final cover seal.

Table 8-7 gives the capital costs for utilization of the existing
City of Kodiak site. Table 8-10 gives the operation costs.

B. Solone Creek Gunnery Range

The pertinent conditions are the same as for a conventional landfill.
See Table 8-8 for capital costs and Table 8-10 for operation costs.

C. Solone Creek Borough Land

The pertinent conditions are the same as for conventional landfill.
See Table 8-9 for capital costs and Table 8-10 for operation costs.

V. LIFE CYCLE COSTS

All costs for the various options will be compared both on the Present
Worth Basis and on the Annual Cost Basis. Each method has its good and
bad points. The reader must remember that the cost comparisons do not factor
in any State grant funds. Tables 8-11 and 8-12 give the costs summaries,
present worth, and,.-annualized costs.

A. Pres-ent Worth

In order for all calculations to be correct, the analysis must have the
same life cycle or series of life cycles for all components of the system.
In order to make the comparisons correct, the analysis has to be for a,twenty
year period, with replacement equipment figured into the series at the appropriate
replacement years.

Using interest alone does not tell the whole story. Inflation caused the
annual costs to increase with time. The growth of waste quantities disposed
of annually also causes annual costs to grow. When replacement components-must
be figured in at a future time, the cost of inflation is off-set by the savings
in interest that is not needed until the replacement time occurs. The net rate
equals 13% interest minus 8% inflation for a net rate of 5%

B. Annual Costs

Again for all costs to be comparable, the basis of the comparison must
be the same. All capital costs are depreciated at the net rate difference
between inflation and interest. The net rate is 13% interest minus 8% inflation
for a net rate of 5%.

C. Junk Auto Disposal

The Borough is initiating a program for the disposal of junk autos.
Currently the program depends primarily on a local salvage operator for its
existence.

In the future, the community has a high probability of having to subsidize
the disposal. Anchorage pays $57.50 per vehicle in subsidy. It is projected
that Kodiak will pay $60.00 per vehicle.

TABLE 8-1

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL LOOSE GARBAGE LANDFILL
APRIL 1982

Solone Creek Gunnery Range

Prepare 20 Acre Site - 10 year life: Secure 40 acres plus 15 acres along
ridge for cover material borrow pit.

1. Site Clearing and Access $ 22,000

2. Access Road (1.6 miles of road) $ 784,000

3. Enclosing Berm $ 16:1,000
28,000 cu. yd. @ $5.75/yd.

4. 1 year cover supply $ 115,000
10,000 cu. yd. @ $11.50/yd.

5. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 147,000
material 98,000 ft.2 @ $1.50/ ft.2

6. Signs $ 7,000

7. Fence 3400 feet @ 201ft. $ 68,000

8. Engineering $ 60,000

94 Monitor Wells (3 @ 500 ea.) $ 15,000

10. Equipment Building Storage $ 70,000
1000 ft.2 @ $70/ft.
SUBTOTAL $1,449,000

11. Contingency (15%) $ 217,000

4/1982 Cost Estimate Total (Capital) $1,666,000

12. Landfill 977 Cat 4 in I Bucket $ 192,000

13. 6 x 6 Truck (10 yd.) $ 87,000

4/19182 SUBTOTAL $1,945,000

14. Land - 40 acres at $6000/acre $ 240,000
(Borough owns the land where
cover must be obtained). TOTAL $2,185,000

TABLE 8-2

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
LOOSE GARBAGE LANDFILL
APRIL 1982

Solone Creek (Borough Land)

Prepare 20 Acres Site - 10 year life; Secure 40 acres plus 15 acres along
ridge for cover material borrow pit.

1. Site Clearing $ 56,000

2. Access Road Improvements (1.2 mi. of road) $ 588,000

3. Filter Fabric Installation $ 78,000
2
Material 80(,%/Yd.
2
Installation 80(,/yd.
$1.60/yd. (10) (43,560)/9

4. 1 Foot of sandy gravel fill over $ 184,000
10 acres 16,000 cu. yd. @ $11.50/yd 3

5, Enclosing Berm $ 161,000
28,000 cu. yd. @ $5.75/yd

6. 1 year cover supply $ 115,000
10,000.cu. yd. @ $11.50/yd

7. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 147,000
material 98,000 ft. 2 @ $1.50/ ft2

8. Signs $ 7,000

9. Fence $ 68,000
3400 feet @ $20/ft.

10. Engineering $ 60,000

11. Monitor Wells (3 @ 5000 ea.) $ 15,000

12. Equipment Storage Building $ 701,000
1000 ft.2 @ $70/ft.
SUBTOTAL $1,549,000

13. Contingency (15%) $ 230,000

4/19/82 Cost Estimate Total (Capital) $1,779,000

14. Landfill 977 Cat 4 in I Bucket $ 192,000

15. 6 x 6 Truck (10 yd.) $ 87,000

4/f9/82 TOTAL $2,058,000

TABLE 8-3

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
LOOSE GARBAGE LANDFILL
APRIL 1982

Swampy Acres

Prepare 20 Acre Site - 10 year life; Secure 40 acres plus 15 acres on Borough
land for cover material borrow pit. (The alternate borrow appears to be
Bell Flats area).

1. Site Clearing and Access $ 84,000

2. Access Road $ 392,000

3. Filter Fabric Installation $ 155,000
Material 80(@/yd .2
Installation 80C/yd 2
$1.60/yd. (20) (435,60)/9

4. 1Foot of sandy gravel fill $ 542,000
32,280 cu. yd. @ $16.80/yd .3

5. Enclosing berm $ .161,000
28,000 cu. yd. @ $5.75/yd'

6. Curtain drain drainage channel $ 116,000
coarse rock, filter cloth & cover
in 6' deep trench - 2000 ft.
@ $58/ft.-

7. 1 year cover supply $ 168,000
10,000 cu. yd. @ $16.80/yd.

8. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 147,000
material 98,000 ft.2 @ $1.50/ft.2

9. Signs $ 75-000.

10. Fence $ 68,000
3400 feet @ $20/ft.

11. Engineering $ 48,000

12. Monitor Wells (3 @ 5000 ea.) $ 15,000

13. Equipment Storage Building $ 70,000

SUBTOTAL $1,973,000

14. Contingency (15%) $ 294,000

4/1982 Cost Vstirnate (Capital) $2,267,000

15. Landfill 977 Cat 4 in I Bucket $ 192,000

16. 6 x 6 Truck (10 yd.) $ 87,000

6/1981 TOTAL $2,546,000

Site Availability dependent upon Federal and State government land transfers.

TABLE 8-4

ANNUAL OPERATION COSTS
LOOSE GARBAGE LANDFILL OPTIONS
APRIL 1982

Personnel
1 Operator Manager $ 47,000
1 Laborer Part-time $ 13,000

Equipment Maintenance, Fuel, Oil, Etc. $ 62,400
977 Track Loader - Compactor
4 hrs/day; 6 days/wk @ $50/hr

6 x 6 Truck Expenses $ 30,000/yr.

SUBTOTAL $ 152,400

VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
LOOSE GARBAGE LANDFILLS

SOLONE CREEK SOLONE CREEK SWAMPY
ITEM GUNNERY RANGE BOROUGH LAND ACRES

Monitoring Tests $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500

Cover Material $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000

CPE Seal Cover
ft.2 ($1.50/ft .2) ---- ----

Surface Drain Pipe $130,000 $130,000 $130,000

Variable Cost Subtotals $161,500 $161,500 $191,500

Fixed Cost Subtotals $152,400 $152,400 $152,400

Operation Cost Totals $313,900 $313,900 $343,900

TABLE 8-5

TRANSFER STATION COST

ESTIMATE

Basic Station:

Bulkhead 6' x 40' $ 7,500

Wing Wall Tie Backs $ 4,000

Guard Rails $ 3,000

270 cu. yds,@ at $25 /Yd3 $ 6,800

40 cu. yd. drop boxes (2) $ 8,000

Miscellaneous $ 3,000

Engineering $ 2,000

Contractor Mark-Up 15% $ 4,800

Basic Sation SUBTOTAL $ 39,100

Contingency@ $ 5,900

TOTAL $

Basic Station Plus Metal Weather Closure:

Basic Station $ 39,100

2
Building @ $35/ft. $ 25,200
(16 x 45)

Basic Station with Weather Enclosure SUBTOTAL $ 64,300

Contingency $ 9,700

TOTAL $ 74,000

TABLE 8-6

BALING SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE

Building $ 830,000

Mechanical & Electrical $ 83,000

Conveyor Pit $ 60,000

Installation $ 46,000

Bailer $ 248,000

Conveyor $ 126,000

Site Work $ 84,000

Contractor 1,477,000 (0.15) $ 222,000

Front End Loaders $ 42,000

I Semi-Tractor Trailer $ 79,000

Engineer.ng $ 80,000

SUBTOTAL $ 1,900,000

Contingency (15%) $ 285,000

4/ 1982 TOTAL $ 2,185,000

TABLE 8-7

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
BALED GARBAGE LANDFILL
APRIL 1982

Renovation of Existing City of Kodiak Landfill - 10 years plus life
secure 10 acres of Borough land for cover material borrow pit.

1. Drainage Diversion $ 75,000
2. Cover Existing Fill $ 338,000
Ili over 5 acres (12,100 yd. 3 @ @28/yd.)
3. 1 year Cover Supply $ 48,000
1.700 cu. yd. @ $28/yd.

4. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 74,000
material 49,000 ft. 2 @ $1.50/ft.

5. Signs $ 4,000

6. Fence $ 24,000
1,200 ft. @ $20/ft.

7. Engineering $ 40,000

8. Monitor Wells (3 @ 5000jea.) $ 15,000

9. Equipment Storage Building $ 42,000
600 ft.2 @ $70/ft.

SUBTOTAL $ 660,000

10. Contingency (15%) $ 97,000
SUBTOTAL $ 757,000

11. 10 yard 4 x 6 Dump Truck $ 60,000

12. End loader w/forklift & blade $ 60,000

4/1982 COST ESTIMATE $ 877,000

TABLE 8-8

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
BALED GARBAGE LANDFILL

olone Gunnery Range; Secure 30 acres plus 15 acres along ridge for cover
material borrow pit.
S

Prepare 10 Acre Site - 10 year life

1. Site Clearing $ 11,000

2. Access Road (1.6 miles of road) $ 784,000

3. 1 year cover supply $ 17,000
1.700 cu. yd. @ $10/yd3

4. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 74,000
material 49,000 ft.2 @ $1.50/ft.

5. Signs $ 7,000

6* Fence $ 34,000
1700 ft. @ $20/ft.

7. Engineering $ 60,000

8. Monitor Wells (3 @ 5000/ea.) $ 15,000

9. Equipment Storage Building $ 42,000
600 ft. 2 @$70/ft.

SUBTOTAL $1,044,000

10. Contingency (15%) $ 154,000

SUBTOTAL $1,198,000

11. 10 yard 4 x 6 Dump Truck $ 60,000

12. End loader w/forklift & blade $ 60,000

SUBTOTAL $1,318,000

13. Land - 30 Acres @ $6000/Acre $ 180,000
(Borough owns the land where
cover must be obtained). TOTAL $1,498,000

TABLE 8-9

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
BALED GARBAGE LANDFILL

Solone Creek on Borough Land; Secure 30 acres plus 15 acres along ridge
for cover material borrow pit.

Prepare 10 Acre Site - 10 years life

1. Site Clearing $ 28,000

2. Access Road Improvements (1.2 mi. of road) $ 588,000

3. Filter Fabric Installation- $ 39,000
24,200 sq. yd. @ $1.60

4. 1 foot sandy gravel fill $ 92,000
3
8,000 cu. yd. @ $11.50/yd.

5. 1 year cover supply $ 17,000
3
1,700 cu. yd. @ $10/yd.

6. 30 mil chlorinated polyethlene cover $ 74,000
material 49,000 ft. 2 @ $1.501ft.

7. Signs $ 7,000

8. Fence $ 34,000

9. Engineering $ 60,000

10. Monitor Wells (3 @ 5000/ea.) $ 15,000

11. Equipment Storage Building 42,000
600 ft.2 @ $70/ft.
SUBTOTAL $ 996,000

12. Contingency (15%) $ 147,000

SUBTOTAL $1,143,000

13. 10 yard.4 x 6 Dump Truck $ 60,000

14. End loader w/forklift & blade $ 60,000

4/1982 TOTAL $1,263,000

TABLE 8-10

ANNUAL OPERATION COSTS
BALING FACILITY AND LANDFILL OPERATION
APRIL 1982

Personnel
1 Operation Manager $ 47,000

1 Operator $ 40,000

Equipment Maintenance, Fuel, Oil, Etc.
2-930 Loaders
4 hrs.'/day; 6 daysi/wk @ $20.00/hr. $ 25,000

Long Flat Bed Truck Expenses $ 81000
SWD - 2 Wire Tie Baler
Operation 2 hrs.'/day
General Maintenance $ 8,000
Dump Truck 4 x 6 $ 10,000
Power $ 10,000

Wire $ 4,000

Building Expenses $800/Mo. $ 10,000

SUBTOTAL $ 162,000

VARIABLE ANNUAL OPERATION COSTS
BALING FACILITY AND LANDFILL

SOLONE CREEK SOLONE CREEK EXISTING
ITEM GUNNERY RANGE BOROUGH LAND CITY SITE

Cover Material $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 20,000

Chlorinated
Polyethlene Cover
Seal 32,000 @ $1.50 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 48,000

Variable Cost
Subtotals $ 53,000 $ 53,000 $ 68,000

Fixed Cost Subtotals $162,000 $162,000 $162,000

Operation Cost Totals $215,000 $215,000 $230,000

TABLE 8-11

COST SUMMARY

CAPITAL OPERATION
COST COST

Conventional Landfills

A. Solone Creek Gunnery Range 2,185,000 $ 313,900

B. Solone Creek Borough Land $ 2,058,000 $ 313,900

C* Swampy Acres $ 2,546,000 $ 343,900

Transfer Station
Per Station w/Shelter $ 64,300 --
Baler Facility $ 2,185,000 -- (D

Baled Landfills

A. Renovation of Existing City $ 877,000 $ 230,000
of Kodiak Landfill

B. Solone Creek Gunnery Range $ 1,498,000 $ 215,000
C. Solone Creek on Borough Land $ 1,263,000 $ 215,000

(D In Landfill Operation Costs

TABLE 8-12

COST, -COMPARISON

CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL BALEFILL

RENOVATION
SOLONE CREEK SOLONE CREEK SWAMPY CITY SOLONE CREEK SOLONE CREEK
SITE GUNNERY RANGE BOROUGH LAND ACRES LANDFILL GUNNERY RANGE BOROUGH LAND

PRESENT WORTH

Capital 2,185,000 2,058,000 2,546,000 3,122,000 3,683,000 3,448,000

Operation 6,278,000 6,278,000 6,878,000 4,600,000 4,300,000 4,300,000

Replacement 171,000 171,000 171,000 148,000 148,000 148,000

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 8,634,000 8,507,000 9,595,000 7,870,000 8,131,000 7,896,000

ANNUALIZED COSTS

Capital 175,300 165,100 204,300 250,500 295,500 276,700

Operation 313,900 313,900 343,900 230,000 215,000 215,000

Replacement 22,200 22,200 22,200 19,200 19,200 19,200

Junk Auto Subsidy 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000

TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS 555,400 545,200 614,400 543,700 573,700 554,900

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 9
1
I
I

1.
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Leachate Study of Kodiak Landfill
I
I

I
I

Discussion

City of Kodiak Landfill
Leachate Sampling Analysis

November 12, 1981

On November 12, 1981 leachate samples were collected from the City
Landfill located off Monaska Bay Road. Heavy rainfall was recorded for
several days prior to sampling and water was noted standing in many areas
when samples were collected.

Nine sampling locations were selected to obtain data from the site
and creeks in the adjacent area. The locations are shown on the attached
aerial photograph.

Also attached are the results of the leachate samples and the maximum
contaminant concentrations allowed by the State of Alaska according to
Mr. Carl Harmon. It is noted that most of the test results closely'c6rrelate
with those specified-by Mr. Harmon.. @Additionaltests are included beyondthose
specified, however, tests for fluoride and nitrates were not performed on
the samples in addition to organic, physical and radioactive contaminants.
The laboratory used cannot measure mercury below 0.05 ppm and the State
requires no more than 0.002 ppm. Similarily, selenium concentrations can-
not be analyzed below 0.01 ppm with 0.01 ppm being the requirement, In
all samples collected, the mercury and selenium concentrations were found
to be less than 0.05 ppm.

Samples 1, 2, and 3 were 'taken from R-25 creek, just north of the land-
fill. At location #1 (above the landfill) the sodium concentration was
6.6 ppm. At location #2 (adjacent to the landfill) the concentration in-
creased to 8.2 ppm. while downstream at location #3 the results were 8.5
ppm. Iron was 0.09 ppm at location #1, 0.03 ppm at site #2 and 0.23 ppm
downstream at site #3. A total increase of 1.9 ppm, of sodium and 0.21
ppm of iron could be caused by the landfill.

Samples 4,5, and 6 were taken from the small creek that flows through
the landfill. Iron was found to be over the required level (0.03 ppm) up-
stream from the landfill at site #4 (0.48 ppm) and increased to 0.53 ppm.
at site #5. Below the landfill at location #6 the concentration was 0.38
ppm of iron. Manganese results from this creek increased from 0.05 ppm
upstream to 1,1 ppm below the landfill. Sodium concentrations increased
substantially from 10.0 ppm,.at location #4 to 110 ppm. at location #6. The
State requirement is 250 ppm.

Samples 7, 8, and 9 were collected adjacent the landfill to the east
and were staked for future reference. At location #8 iron was found to
be 0.57 ppm over the State requirement of 0.3 ppm. At location #7 manganese
was 0,16 ppm over the 0,05 ppm. requirement. Soldium was slightly different
at each site but was well within the desired level.

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.
01
TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Street
U,

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER Arctic F-m-immmi-al MginWrZ___ SAMPLE LOCATION
FOR LAB.,USE'ONLY
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED:---=-- REtVP,*;*SY-. Gy -LAB JI-19-4111--l-
SAMPLED BY SOURCE I DATE RiC_E_IT0 11-17-Rl

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-70-81

DATE REPORTED, 11-90-Al

SIGNED
mg/l mg/l L
[]Ag.Silver- <0.05 []P,Phosphorous <0.05 - []Cyanide
C]Al,Aluminum <0. 05 C]Pb,Lead <0.05 []Sulfate
[]As,Arsenic <0.05 []Pt,Platinum <0.05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 []Sb,Antimony <0.05 0Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron <0.05 C]Se,Selenium <0.05 - 0Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium MD5 []Si,Silicon 3.5 - []Suspended 18
Solids
[]Bi,Bismuth <0.05 []Sn,Tin <0.10 OVolatile Sus-
[]Ca,Calcium 3.8 pended Solids
[]Sr,Strontium <0-05 []Hardness as
CaC
C]Cd,CadmiLun <0.01 []Ti,Titanium <0. 05 []AlDinity as
[]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten <1 CaC03

C]Cr,Chromium <0.05 []V,Vanadium <0.05

11Cu'.Coppe <0.05 (]Zn,Zinc- <0. 05" Cm in
C]Fe,Iron 0.09 []Zr,Zirconium <0.05 -
C]Hg,Mercury <0.05 []Arrmonia [Immhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
(]K,Potassium 0.8 []Kjedahl []pH Units
[]Mg,Magnesium 1.2 Nitrogen-N
[]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
C]Mn,Manganese <0.05 []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
[]Mo,Molybdenum <0.05 []Phosphorus C]T.Coliform/100m 1 0
(Ortho)-P
[]Na,Sodiwn 6.6 OChloride

(]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.
01 0;
TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3M 5633 8 Street

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER Arctic Erw=onmental Emineers SAMPLE LOCATION-
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED: RECVD.BY Gy LAB #-.L487-2

SAMPLED BY -SOURCE 2 DATE RECEIVED 11-17-81

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED. 11-20-81

DATE RE-0-TEn 11- 0-81

,SIGN D
mg/l mg/l
C]Ag,S ilver <0.05 []P Phosphorous <n_ 0c; []Cyanide_
C]AI.Aluminum 0-33 []Pb,Lead <171-1119; []Sulfate
[]As:Arsenic <0.05 C]Pt,Platinum <0.05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 []Sb,Antimony <0.05 []Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron <0- 0-5 []Se.selenium- <0.05 []Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium <0.05 []Si,Silicon 4-0 (]Suspended 'A C;
[]Bi,Bismuth <0.05 Solids
C]Sn,Tin <0. 1-0 []Volatile Sus-
[]Ca.Calcium 4.1 pended Solids
[]Sr,'Strontium. <111- 0c; []Hardness as
CaCN
[]Cd,Cadmium <0.01 []Ti,Titanium_ <n- nc; -[]AlkaTinity as
CaC03
[]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten-
C]Cr,Chromium <0. 05 []V,Vanadium en nc;
[]Cu,Copper <0_05 []Zn,Zinc' 40 or- I A
[]Fe,Iron 0.30 []Zr,Zirconium eo 0c; U
C]Hg,Mercu" <0.05 []Ammonia -.C]mmhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium 1.3 []Kjedahl C]pH Units
C]Mg,Magnesium 1-3 Nitrogen-N
[]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
[]Mn,Manganese <0. 05 []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
[]Mo,Molybdenum <0_05 []Phosphorus []T.Coliform/lOOml
8.2 (Ortho)-P
[JNa,Sodium (]Chloride
[]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES ca'ALASKA, INC.
TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER 0
274-3364 5633 8 Strnt
CUSTOMER Arctic EmdXgr ANALYTICAL REPORT
agntal Encrineers SAMPLE LOCATION:
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED: RECVD.BY LAB 9487-3

SAMPLED BY SOURCE 3 DATE RECEIVED

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-20-81

uni F_ ru n- 11 -20-81
_4
ISIGNEn
mg/l mg/l mg/l
[]Ag,Silver <0.05 (1P,Phosphorous <n- 05, []Cyanid
C]Al,A luminum 0.28 C]Pb,Le ad <0-05 []Sulfate
[]As,Arsenic <0.05 (jPt.,Platinum <a- M []Phenol
C]Au,Gold <0.05 []Sb,Antimony <n- nc; []Total Dissolved
Solids
(IB,Boron <0.05 []Se,Selenium a- (719; []Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium <0.05 []Si,Silicon 4-n []Suspended
Solids
[]Bi,Bismuth <0.05 []Sn,Tin <n-in []Volatile Sus-
pended Solids
[]Ca,Calcium 4.1 []Sr,Strontium. n- nc; []Hardness as
CaC
[]Cd,Cadmium <0.01 []Ti,Titanium <0,05 IIAlkaYinity as
[]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten- <1 CaC03

[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 []V,Vanadium <0_05

[]Cu,Coppe <0.05 (]Zn,Zinc <n-nc; rf n

C]Fe,Iron 0.23 []Zr,Zlrconium <0.05
[]Hg,Mercury <0.05 []Ammonia (Immhos Conductivit
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium I.A []Kjedahl []pH Units
[]Mg.Magnesium 1.3 Nitrogen-N
[]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
[]Mn,Manganese <0,05 []Nitrite-N. 0Color Units
[]Mo,Molybdenum 40,05 OPhosphorus C]T.Col i form/l 00ml ?7
(Ortho)-P
Da,Sodium 8.5 OChloride
[]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA9 INC.

TELEPHONE (907)-279,4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Street

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER 6=ic Emdxa=ae=1 EwjnPPr_q SAMPLE LOCATION
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED--- TIME COLLECTED: RECVD. BY r,-.r LAB #__SAa7_-4_

SAMPLED BY SOURCE 4 DATE RECEIV 11 _1:Z_81

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-20-81

DATE REPnR ED 11-20-81
ISIGNED d
I &dz.,A@2 @:& ____
mg/l mg/l mg/l
[]Ag,Silver <0. 05 EIP,Phosphorous <n nc;- []Cyanide
(]A1 , Al umi num 0.13 C]Pb,Lead <n- nc; []Sulfate
C]As,Arsenic <0_05 []Pt,Platinum <0-05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 Sb,Antimony <n - nc; (]Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron <0.05 []Se,Selenium <n - nc; []Total Volatile
Solids
C]Ba,Barium <0_05 []Si,Silicon 4_6 []Suspended
[]Bi,Bismuth <0.05 Solids
[]Sn,Tin []Volatile Sus-
[]Ca,Calcium 10 pended Solids
[]Sr,Strontium n_07 []Hardness as
CaC
C]Cd.Cadmium <0.01 []Ti.Titanium 'In nc; []AlkaYinity as
[]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten . - 11 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 EIV,Vanadium--- 40 nc;
[1Cu,Copper_____@5 @... (]Zn,Zin.c ?n
C]Fe,Iron 0.48 []Zr,ZIrconium <o nc;
[]Hg,Mercury <0.05 []Ammonia C]mmhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium 1.0 (]Kjedahl []pH Units
Nitrogen-N
[]Mg,Magnesium 1.8 []Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
[]Mn,Manganese 0.05 []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
E]MO.Molybdenum :0- 05 []Phosphorus []T.Coliform/100ml
(Ortho)-P
[]Na,Sodiwn 10 []Chloride
0 %

[14i,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.

TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Str"t

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER Arr+ie- rny-t-rnnrrw-ni-;;1 EWinPPr_q SAMPLE LOCATION:
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED-- TIME COLLECTED- RECVD.BY rx LAB #
SAMPLED BY SOURCE c; DATE RECEIVED 11-17-81
REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-20-81
DATE REPORT il- 0-81
SIGNEDe&_4,d@,& J
mg/l mg/l
C]Ag.Silver <0.05 []P,Phosphorous <n-nc; []Cyanide-
[]Al,Aluminum O_ 07 []Pb,Lead <n_ nc; USulfate
[]As,Arsenic. <0.05 []Pt,Platinum <171-05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 [1Sb,Antimony <111-1115 (]Total Dissolved
Solids
C]B,Boron <0.05 []Se,Selenium <n-nr, Motal Volatile
Solids
C]Ba,Barium <0.05 []Si,Silicon 4-4 (]Suspended
Solids
08i,Bismuth <0.05 []Sn,Tin <0 - 1-0 []Volatile Sus-
[]Ca,Calcium 12 pended Solids
- -[]Sr,Strontium 0_09 []Hardness as
[]Cd,Cadmium <0.01 nc; CaC
[]Ti.Titanium []AlkaYinity as
[]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten- <1 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0-05- CIV,Vanadium < (1c;
(]Cu,Copper_______:5!J- _05 []Zn,Zinc <o n-% c M__ 20
C]Fe.Iron 0.53 []Zr,Zi-rconium nne;
[]Hg,Mercury <0.05 []Ammonia (Immhos Conductivity
CJK,Potassium 1.4 Nitrogen-N
(]Kjedahl []pH Units
C]Mg,Magnesium 2-0 Nitrogen-N
[]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
C]Mn,Manganese 0.19 []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
(]Mo,Molybdenum <0.05
[]Phosphorus (]T.Coliform/100ml
(Ortho)-P
(]Na,Sodium 9.8 []Chloride
[]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

A@l

Ok .'"QE
CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.
01

.... TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Street

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER A-rr-+ie-- rmdrarnrent-al n=ineers - SAMPLE LOCATION.-
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED: FOR LAB USE ONLY
RECVO.BY Gy LAB 9487-f;

SAMPLED BY SOURCE 6 DATE RECEIVED____11_-12_-R1_

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-M-81

DATE REPORT 0 11-20-81

SIGNED. 1_4@
mg/l mg/l mg/l
[]Ag,Silver <0.05 []P,Phosphorous- <0.05 []Cyanide
(JAl Aluminum <O-05 []Pb,Lead <0.05 []Sulfate
C]As,Arsenic <0-05 []Pt,Platinum <0.05 OPhenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 []Sb,Antimony <0.05 []Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron 0.45 []Se,Selenium <0.05 []Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium <0.05 C]Si,Silicon - 3.9 []Suspended - 15
[]Bi,Bismuth <0.05 Solids
[]$njin <0.10 []Volatile Sus-
[]Ca,Calcium 58 pended Solids
[]Sr,Strontium 0.42- []Hardness as
[]Cd.Cadmium <0.01 CaCO@
[]Ti,Titanium- <0.05 UAlkaTinity as
[]Co.Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten <1 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 EIV,Vanadium <0.05
E]CU.Copper <0.05 []Zn,Zinc <0.05 rM
[]Fe,Iron 0.38 []Zr,Zirconium <0.05
[]Hg,Mercury <0.05 []Ammonia [Immhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[JK.Potassium 30 []Kjedahl [jpH Units
[]Mg,Magnesium 15 Nitrogen-N
C]Nitrate-N (]Turbidity NTU
[]Mn,Manganese 1.2 C]Nitrite-N CjColor Units
[]Mo,Molybdenum <0.05 []Phosphoru C]T.Coliform/100ml
[]Na,Soditffn 110 (Ortho)-P
- []Chloride
[]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.

TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Street

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER Arctic awircrmental EMineers - -SAMPLE LOCATION'
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED: RECVD.BY G7 LAB #_R4a2_-7_

SAMPLED BY SOURCE 7 DATE RECEIV 11-17-81

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-20-81

DATE REPORT n 11-2Q-R1
ISIGNED w!,(yv
mg/l mg/l mg/l
[]Ag.Silver <0.05 []P,Phosphorous 0-10 (]Cyanide
C]AI, Aluminum <0.05 C]Pb,Lead <0.0-9 []Sulfate
[]As,Arsenic <0.05 []Pt,Platinum <0.05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 [jSb,Antimcny <0.05 []Total Dissolved
Solid S
[]B,Boron 0.18 []Se,Selenium <0,05 []Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium <0.05 []Si,Sil icon 3.6 (]Suspended 40
Solids
[18i,Bismuth <0.05 E]Sn,Tin <0.10 []Volatile Sus-
pended Solids
[]Ca,Calcium 12 []Sr,Strontium 0.07 []Hardness as
[ICd,Cadmium <0.01 []Tf,Titanium <0 - (A CaC a@inity as
[]Alk
[]Co,Cobalt W; E]W,Tungsten <1 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 E]V,Vanadium

(1cu'Coppe <n-nc; []Zn,Zinc Ka 05 68

[]Fe,Iron 0.25 []Zr,Zlr conium <n- nc;
[]Hg,mercury []Ammonia []mmhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium 17 []Kjedahl [jpH Units
Nitrogen-N
C]Mg,Magnesium 4.9 []Nitrate-N (]Turbidity NTU
[3Mn,Manganese______Q_2j_ []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
[]Mo,Molybdenum <n- 09; []Phosphoru []T.Coliform/100ml
(Ortho)-P
[]Na,Sodium 40 []Chloride

[]Ni,Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.
0
TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER 6.
274-3364 5633 8 Stroet

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER Arr+ie- r-mnram=tal Eacdugm - SAMPLE LOCATION'
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED:____@ RECVD. BY 91 LAB #_2Aa1-_8

SAMPLED BY SOURCE DATE RECEIV 11-17-RT

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-20-81

DATE REPO9UD___U_20-81
ISIGNED =Mgz_z@
mg/l mg/l mg/l
[]Ag.Silver <0.05 []P,Phosphorous 0-14 []Cyanid

[]Al Aluminum 0.25 []Pb,Lead <0.05 []Sulfate
[]As,Arsenic <0.05 []Pt,Platinum <0. 05 []Phenol
[]Au,Gold <0.05 []Sb,Antimcny <0.05 []Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron <0.05 []Se,Selenium <0-05 []Total Volatile
Solids
C]Ba.Barium <0.05 C]Si,Silicon 4-9 []Suspended 17R
Solids
[]Bi,Bismuth <10.05 []Sn,Tin <0.10 []Volatile Sus-
C]Ca,Calcium 4-8 <0_17IS pended Solids
[]Sr,Strontium []Hardness as
CaC
(]Cd.Cadmium <0.01 []Ti,Titanium <n_ 05 []AlkaYinity as
(]Co,Cobalt <0.05 []W,Tungsten <1 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 []V,Vanadium <n - 0,;
[]Cu,Copper <0.05 []Zn,Zinc 40-05 am 22
C]Fe,Iron 0.87 []Zr,Zirconium <n a5
[]Hg,Mercury, <0.05 []Ammonia []mmhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium 7-1 (]Kjedahl C]pH Units
[]Mg,Magnesium 2.8 Nitrogen-N
C]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
[]Mn,Manganese <0.05 (]Nitrite-N []Color Units
C]Mo,Molybdenum <n-nc; []Phosphorus []T.Coliform/100ml
(Drtho)-P
[]Na,Sodium 16 []Chloride
(]Ni.Nickel <0.05 []Fluoride

CAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC.

TELEPHONE f907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
274-3364 5633 8 Street

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CUSTOMER A-rr-t-je- rmrjrnrmPn-I-a1 =jnPPr_-; SAMPLE LOCATION'
FOR LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED -TIME COLLECTED: RECVD. BY Gay LAB #_207--2-

SAMPLED BY SOURCE DATE RECEIVED 11-17-RI

REMARKS DATE COMPLETED- 11-M-81
DATE REPO TED ii-go-8i
ISIGN D -- - - Ue_'(1'h ____
mg/l mg/l 0 22/-l
[]A�,Silver <n- ne; []P,Phosphorous <11-111c; []Cyanide

C]Al,Aluminum -,n- nc; []Pb,Lead <0.05 []Sulfate

[]As,Arsenic eo nc; []Pt,Platinum <0.05 []Phenol

[]Au,Gold ,n n,; []Sb,Antimony <0.05 []Total Dissolved
Solids
[]B,Boron <n-nr, []Se,Selenium <0.05 []Total Volatile
Solids
[]Ba.Barium 40 n5 C]Si.Silicon 4.6 []Suspended CIA
Solids
[]Bi,Bismuth <n nc; []Sn,Tin <0.10 []Volatile Sus-
pended Solids
[]Ca,Calcium 4 1 []Sr,Strontium <0.05 []Hardness as
CaC
[]Cd,Cadmium 40-03- []Ti,Titanium :0_05 C]AlkaYinity as
[]Co,Cobalt <101-gs []W,Tungsten <1 CaC03
[]Cr,Chromium <0.05 []V,Vanadium <a-ns
[]Cu,Copper <0.05 []Zn,Zinc <a-nc; rr)n 3-4

[]Fe,Iron 0.25 []Zr,Zirconium <n- ne;
[]Hg,mercury <0-05 []Ammonia Ommhos Conductivity
Nitrogen-N
[]K,Potassium 3.5 []Kjedahl []pH Units
C]Mg,Magnesium 3.2 Nitrogen-N
[]Nitrate-N []Turbidity NTU
C]Mn,Manganese <0.05 []Nitrite-N. []Color Units
(]Mo,Molybdenum <0.05 []Phosphorus C]T.Coliform/100ml
[]Na,Sodium 12 (Ortho)-P
[]Chloride

C]Ni,Nickel <0.05 (]Fluoride

Reg. 67, Oct., 1978

TT@TLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 18 AAC 80.050

18 AAC 80.050. CONT-MINANT":CONCENTRATIONS@,@2 (a) The
ns '@t@stems are as
maximum contaminant concent-iAftb ' t6i@putft@'@Me
follows:

(1) Inorganic Chemical Contaminants

Contaminant Maximum Contaminant
Concentration (mg/1)

Arsenic ................................... 0.05
Barium .................................... 1.
Cadmium ................................... 0.010
Chromium .................................. 0.05
Fluoride .................................. 2.4-
a......................
Iron ............... 0.3
Lead ...................................... 0.05
Manganesea ................................ 0.05
Mercury ................................... 0.002
Nitrate (as Nitrogen) .................... 10.
Selenium .................................. 0.01
Silver .................................... 0.05
Sodiuma ................................. 250.

(2) Organic Chemical Contaminants

Contaminant Maximum Contaminant
Concentration (mg1l)

Endrin .................................... 0.0002
Litidant .................................... 0.004
Methoxychlor .............................. 0.1
Toxaphene ................................. 0.005
2,4-D ..................................... 0.1
2,3,5-I'll Silvex ........................... 0.01

(3) Physical Contaminants

Contaminant Maximum Contaminant
Concentration
Color ................................ o. 30b units
Turbidity ............................... onec unit as a monthly
average of samples
required, or taken by
the department, and.
five units as an
average for two
consecutive days

41"
lk@ w'..A

41
4k
X V

too

^REA

On-

ir PR

400' eoo@@

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ADEC Regulations Application
I
I
I I,

Section
10. General requirements
20. Solid waste management permit
30. Operating requirements
40. Incineration
50. Disposal on land,
60. Reclamation facilities
70. Solid waste management responsibility
80. Solid waste management on public
property
90. Junked vehicle and equipment disposal
100. Presumptive proof of illegal disposal
110. Abatement order
115. Identification of solid waste management
regions
120. Penalties
130. Definitions

18 AAC 60.010. GENERAL RE-
QUIREMENTS. (a) Solid waste shall be
collected, stored, transported, utilized,
processed, disposed or reclaimed in a manner
consistent with this chapter in order to control,
prevent and abate pollution of the air, water,
land and subsurface land of the state.

(b) Local and regional authorities are not
prohibited from adopting solid waste
management regulations that are the same as or
more stringent than the requirements of this
chapter. (Eff. 7/19/73 Reg. 47)
Authority: AS46-03.020(10)(A)
AS 46.03.020(1 0)(E)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
AS 46.03.710

18 AAC 60.020. SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PERMIT. (a) No person may
establish, modify or operate a solid waste
disposal facility without a permit, except the
following-

(1) a single-family or duplex residence on
which solid waste is generated and disposed of,
on-premises;

(2) a farm on which solid waste generated
from the operation of that farm is disposed;

(3) incinerator facilities having a total rated
capacity of less than 200 pounds of solid waste
per hour.

18-10

Regisler 67, October 1978 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 18 AAC 60.020
18 AAC 60.030

(b) An application for a permit shall contain reasons for the action. Such action shall not
two sets of the following, submitted to the prevent a person from submitting another
department for approval: application.
(1) a completed permit application form; (h) The department.will issue a permit under
(2) detailed plans and specifications for the this section if the applicant demonstrates that
facility; (1) the disposal facility meets the
requirements of this chapter and chs. 50, 70 and
(3) certification of compliance with local 72 of this title; and
ordinances and zoning requirements; (2) the establishment or continued operation
(4) a report detailing the proposed method of of the disposal facility will not result in
operation, population and area to be served, the avoidable proliferation of solid waste disposal
characteristics, quantity and source of material facilities in the affected area. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg.
to be processed, the use and distribution of 47; am 8/21/78, Reg. 67)
processed materials, method of residue disposal, Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
emergency operating procedures, the type and AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E)
amount of equipment to be provided, and the AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
proposed ultimate land use plan. AS 46.03. 1 00(a)
AS 46.03.11 0(a)
(c) A person operating a solid waste disposal AS 46.03.11 0(d)
facility on the effective date of these regulations
and requiring a permit shall apply for such 18 AAC 60.030. OPERATING REQUIRE-
permit within 90 days of the effective date of MENTS. (a) A permittee shall be required to
the regulations.
(1) Provide a permanent sign posted at the
(d) A permit shall be valid for a specified facility entrance identifying the facility, the
period but in no case exceeding rive years. hours and days the facility is open for public
Application for renewal shall be made at least 30 use, the name and address of the operator and
days prior to the. expiration of an existing other information pertinent to the operation of
permit. Any alteration or deviation in operating the facility;
procedure from the provisions of an existing
permit shall f irst be submitted to the (2) provide effective methods, approved by
department for approval. Prior to renewing a the department, to control insects, birds,
permit the department 'may conduct an rodents, other disease vectors and nuisance
inspection to determine whether the solid waste conditions;
disposal facility and its operation are in
compliance with state law, regulations and (3) obtain specific departmental approval for
permit conditions. the processing and disposal of hazardous waste.
(e) A permit may not be transferred without (b) A permittee may be required to
the written consent of the department.
(1) compact and cover all solid waste
(f) A permit for a solid waste disposal facility accumulated after each day's operation with
may be revoked or suspended whenever the earth or other approved material in an approved
department finds, after investigation, that the manner safeguarding the environmental quality
facility is being operated, maintained or used in of the surrounding area, except that solid waste
violation of state law, regulations or permit processed by milling, baling or other operations,
conditions. specifically approved by the department, may
(g) If a permit is denied, revoked, suspended not require daily cover;
or permit renewal is refused the applicant or (2) install, maintain and operate monitoring
permittee shall be notified in writing of the equipment, for the detection of pollution or

18-11

contamination resulting or tending to result (3) liquids and solid residues generated by
from the operation of the facility, in accordance the incineration of solid waste shall be treated or
with methods and procedures prescribed by the disposed in a manner approved by the
department, at specified locations and intervals, department. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)
and to provide the resulting data to the Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
department; AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E)
(3) provide c6ntroUed access to the facility in AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
the form of fences and gates that shall be kept 18 AAC 60.050. DISPOSAL ON LAND. 'Me
locked when an attendant is not on duty; disposal of solid waste on the land shall comply
(4) submit quarterly reports itemizing the with the following requirements:
type and quantity of solid waste processed, the (1) the disposal of putrescible waste in areas
quantity of waste requiring final disposal, hours subject to permafrost or leachate generation is
of facility operation and market value -of any restricted and shall be allowed only in
reclaimed material. conjunction with special procedures approved
by the department;
(c) A permittee shall not be required to
provide daily cover for solid waste comprised of (2) open burning on a landfill is prohibited;
mine tailings, gravel pit and quarry spoils or
overburden, but remains responsible for (3) solid waste shall be deposited in a manner
restoring the area by grading, contouring and to prevent waste materials, leachate or eroded
seeding in accordance to plans approved by the sod particles from entering the waters of the
department. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47) state;
Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
AS 46.03.020(1 0)(E) (4) a minimum separation of two feet shall
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H) be maintained between putrescible solid waste
and the anticipated high ground water table;
18 AAC 60.040. INCINERATION. (a) non-putrescible and non-water-soluble materials
Incineration is the required method for the such as brick, stone, concrete and similar
destruction of infectious and pathological wastes materials may be deposited below the
generated at medical and veterinary facilities, anticipated high ground water table if such
prior to final disposal. deposition will result in a nuisance-free
operation and no pollution to the ground
(b) Incineration shall be considered as a viable waters;
processing alternative in the detailed plan
required in sec. 20(b)(2) of this chapter. (5) surface water drainage from areas outside
a landfill shall not be allowed to flow over or
(c) No person may use an incinerator facility through a landfill;
for solid waste processing that has a total rated
capacity equal to or greater than 200 pounds per (6) the working face of a landfill shall be
hour unless it complies with the following: limited to as small an area as practicable and
designed to confine wind-blown waste, which
(1) an incinerator shall be designed and shall be collected and returned to the working
operated so that emitted air contaminants, face
including odors, gases and particulate matter do
not exceed the standards established in ch. 50 of (7) scavenging is prohibited;
this title;
(8) uncontrolled live, domestic animals are
(2) upon completion of an incinerator prohibited within the landfill area;
facility and prior to initial operation, the
department shall be notified in order that it may (9) the approach road to a landfill shall be
conduct an inspection. The department may maintained to provide access and kept clean of
waive the initial inspection and conduct an solid waste;
operational inspection at a later date. 18-12

(10) solid waste shall be spread in shallow 18 AAC 60.070. SOLID WASTE
layers not exceeding a depth of two feet prior to MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY. (a) The
compaction, completed lifts shall be no greater aesthetic, nonhazardous and sanitary storage of
than eight feet in vertical depth unless otherwise solid waste is the responsibility of the person
allowed by permit requirements; owning, operating or managing the property,
premises, business establishment or industry
(11) solid waste shall be compacted and where the solid waste is accumulated.
covered with earth or other approved material at
a frequency specified by permit requirement; (b) A person not exempted in sec. 20 of this
chapter, owning, operating or managing a
(12) within one month after termination of a property, premises, business establishment, or
landfill, or a major portion thereof, the area industry has the responsibility of removing
shall be covered with at least two feet of accumulated solid waste to an approved solid
compacted earth material, graded and finished waste disposal facility. Contractual or other
to allow surface water to run off without arrangements for the removal of accumulated
erosion; areas completed during winter solid waste shall not relieve a person of this
operation may receive final cover the following primary responsibility. Solid waste shall be
spring; removed to an approved disposal facility, prior
to creating nuisance conditions.
(13) ten days prior to removal of earth
moving equipment from a completed landfill, (c) A person sponsoring any public activity,
the department shall be notified so that an including but not limited to, recreational,
inspection may be conducted. (Eff. 7/19/73, sporting or entertainment events is responsible
Reg. 47) for the collection, storage, transportation and
Authority: AS 46.03.020(1 0)(A) disposal of all solid waste generated as a result of
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E) the event. Solid waste shall be collected,
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H) removed and disposed in an approved solid
18 AAC 60.060. RECLAMATION waste disposal facility.
FACILITIES. (a) No person may maintain or (d) The disposal of animal carcasses is the
operate a reclamation facility, or permit the use responsibility of the land owner or land
of property for such an operation, unless the occupant or both upon whose land the animal
operation complies with the following: carcass is found to be creating a nuisance.
Disposal of the carcass shall be by immediate
(I ; open burning of solid waste at a burial, covered by at least two feet of
reclamation facility is prohibited; compacted earth, incineration or by other
methods approved by the department.
(2) by-products removed during processing
shall be handled in a sanitary and nuisance free- (e) Solid waste shall be collected in a sanitary
manner and shall be recycled or disposed in a manner and transported to an approved disposal
manner approved by the department; facility in a covered leak-proof container. Solid
waste spilled during collection shall be
(3) reclaimed materials offered for sale shall immediately retrieved by the collector or
not contain pathogenic organisms or their transporter, returned to the vehicle or container
indicators, putrescible waste or other and the area cleaned.
characteristics which could cause injury to
persons purchasing the reclaimed materials. (Eff. (f) Vehicles and containers used for the
7/19/73, Reg. 47) collection and transportation of hazardous waste
Authority: AS 46.03.020(10)(A) shall be loaded, moved and unloaded in a secure
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E) manner. Transportation of radioactive material
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H) in addition shall comply with 18 AAC 85-320.
(Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)
Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
18-13

18 AAC 60.080. SOLID WASTE address appears on such items committed the
MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. (a) unlawful act of disposal. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)
iNo person may deposit solid waste in, on or Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
along a highway right-of-way, road, street, trail, AS 46.03.0200 0)(E)
spur, turn around, tunnel, drainage structure, AS 46.03.0200 0)(H)
water of the state, public recreation facility or
other public property, unless 18 AAC 60.110. ABATEMENT ORDER. When
the department finds, after investigation, that
(1) such property is designated by the state solid waste is creating an environmental nuisance
as an authorized solid waste disposal facility, or; the commissioner may issue a written abatement
order to the person owning, managing or
(2) the solid waste is deposited in a public operating the property. When an abatement
Etter receptacle. order is received, or posted on the property, the
person responsible for the property shall remove
(b) A person providing a litter receptacle for or abate the nuisance as directed by the
use by the traveling public shall maintain the commissioner. A person who neglects or refuses
receptacle in a sanitary condition so as to to abate the nuisance is guilty, and upon
prevent the propagation of flies, odors and conviction is subject to the penalties provided
overflowing conditions. for in sec. 120 of this chapter. In addition to
such punishment the court may assess damages
(c) A public Utter receptacle shall be used only against the defendant for the expenses of
by the traveling public for travel-generated solid abating the nuisance. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)
waste. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47) Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A)
Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A) AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E)
AS 46.03.020(10)(E) AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H) AS 46.03.800
18 AAC 60.090. JUNKED VEHICLE AND AS 46.03.8 10
EQUIPMENT DISPOSAL. (a) Junked vehicles 18 AAC 60.115. IDENTIFICATION OF
and equipment shall not be used for slope SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGIONS. (a)
stabilization and erosion preventive purposes. The department will identify appropriate
geographic areas as solid waste management
(b) The disposal of junked vehicles and regions as required by the Federal Resource
equipment into waters or upon the lands of the Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public
state requires the approval of the commissioner. Law 94-580. Before identification, the
department will examine the following
(c) Junked vehicles and equipment shall be characteristics of the area to determine the
disposed of by crushing and burial in a landfill, effects of identification upon the department's
stored in an approved manner for recycling, or solid waste management goals of reducing or
processed by other methods approved by the minimizing land, air, and water pollution and
department. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47) - other environmental degradation, reducing
Authority: AS 46.03.020(l 0)(A) public health and safety hazards, and increasing
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E) resource conservation and recovery:
AS 46.03.020(1 0)(H) (I ) existing geographic and political
18 AAC 60.100. PRESUMPTIVE PROOF OF boundaries;
ILLEGAL DISPOSAL. Solid waste, disposed of
in violation of this chapter, which contains three (2) existing planning processes;
or more items bearing the name or address of
one person, shall provide a rebuttable (3) size and population of the area;
presumption that the person whose name or
(4) type and quantity of solid waste
generated;

18-14

(5) transportation systems within the area not more than one year or both. (Eff. 7/19/73,
and between the area and existing recycling Reg. 47)
markets; Authority: AS 46.03.760(a)
AS 46.03.790
(6) existence or ease of establishment of a
regional planning agency approved by agencies 18 AAC 60.130. DEFINITIONS. Unless the
with solid waste management powers and context indicates otherwise, in this chapter
responsibilities; (1) "commissioner" means the
commissioner of the Department of
(7) potential for eliminating duplicative solid Environmental Conservation;
waste management functions; and (2) "department" means the Department of
(8) economic and environmental impacts Environmental Conservation;
expected.
(3) "hazardous waste" means waste that is
(b) Any person may nominate a geographic capable of causing injury, disease or impairment
area lying outside the areas specified in (c) of of health, or property damage, including but not
this section for identification as a solid waste limited to poisons, pesticides, acids, caustics,
management region by the department. infectious or pathological wastes, radioactive
Nominations must be submitted to the materials, explosive materials and oil anA
department in writing and must include an petroleum products;
analysis of how identification of the additional
area will meet the goals specified in (a) of this (4) "incineration" means the process of
section. bun-dng solid, liquid or gaseous combustible
wastes to gases and a residue, within an
(c) The following geographic areas are incinerator;
identified as solid waste management regions: . (5) "incinerator" means any equipment,
(1) the Municipality of Anchorage; device or contrivance excluding fireplaces and
burn barrels, used for the controlled thermal
(2) the Fairbanks North Star Borough; reduction of solid waste;

(3) the City and Borough of Juneau; (6) "landfill" means a land area used for the
disposal of solid waste;
(4) the Kenai Peninsula Borough;
(7) "leachate" means water that has
(5) the City and Borough of Sitka; and percolated through solid waste and contains
dissolved or suspended portions from the solid
(6) the City of Valdez. (Eff. 8/21/78, Reg. waste;
67)
- Authority: AS 46.03.020(8) (8) "lift" means a compacted layer of solid
AS 46.03.020(9) waste and its overlying earth cover in a landfill;
AS 46.03.0200 0)(A)
AS 46.03.0200 0)(E) (9) "open burning" means the burning of
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H) any material such that the products of
combustion are emitted directly into the
18 AAC 60.120. PENALTIES. A person who ambient air without passing through a stack or
violates any provision of this chapter is flare;
punishable by the appropriate penalties
contained in AS 46.03.760 (a) and AS (10) "permit" means written authorization
46.03.790. These penalties include the from the department-,
possibility of a maximum punishment by a fine
of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment for

18-15

(11) "person" means any individual,, public
or private corporation, political subdivision,
Pvernment 'agency, mun;cipality, industry,
copartnership; association, firm, trust, estate, or
any other entity whatsoever;

(12) "public litter receptacle" means a
container provided for the public, as a
convenience, in order to dispose of solid waste;

(13) "putrescible waste" means material
capable of being decomposed so as to cause
nuisance or obnoxious odors;

(14) "reclamation facility" means a facility
in which solid waste is stored, dismantled or
reprocessed to recover salvageable materials for
purposes of sale or Teuse;

(15) "solid waste" means aIJ unwanted or
discarded solid or semi-solid material whether
putrescible or nonputrescible, originating from
any source, including but not limited to garbage,
paper, wood, metal, glass, plastic, rubber, cloth,
ashes, litter and street sweepings, dewatered
sewage sludge, dead animals, offal, junked
vehicles and equipment, material and debris
resulting from construction or demolition
projects, abandoned and decaying structures,
hazardous wastes, n-dne wastes, gravel pit and
quarry spoils, and overburden except that
originating from the construction of single
buildings;

(16) "solid waste disposal facility" means an
intermediate disposal facifty, transfer 'station,
landfill, incinerator, composting plant, recycling
or reclamation facility or any site utilized for
the reduction, consolidation, conversion,
processing or disppsal of solid waste;

(17) "working face" means that portion of
the landfill in which solid waste is deposited and
compacted prior to the placement of an earth
cover. (Eff. 7/19/73, Reg. 47)
Authority: AS46.03.020(10)(A)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(E)
AS 46.03.020(l 0)(H)
AS 46.03.900

18-16

STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Part I. Background Information

A. Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address:
City/State/Zip Code:

B. Facility Location: (Use legal description of property)

C. Application is for: A New Facility
An Unpermitted, Existing Facility
Renewal of Existing Permit No.
D. Type of facility: Demolition Debris Exemption

Landfilling Hazardous Waste Processing
Land Spreading Hazardous Waste Disposal
Oily Waste Disposal Other

E. Complete the following:

1. Number of people served by the facility.

2. How much waste will be received? (tons) (cu. yds.)
(day) (wk) (month)

3. Check the wastes received and estimate their percent of total
wastes received.
Yes No % of Total

Domestic Refuse %
Commercial Refuse %
Seafood Processing Wastes %
Industrial Wastes %
Construction Wastes %
Demolition Wastes %
Oily Wastes %
Ash and Incinerator Residue %

4. Will the following wastes be accepted?

Yes No

Septic Tank Pumpings
Sewage Sludge
Drilling Muds
Waste Oil and Oil Spill
Cleanup Wastes
Hazardous Wastes

5. What predisposal processing methods will be employed?

Incineration
Haling
Shredding
Composting
Other:

6. The average annual precipitation in the area is inches.

FOR LANDFILLS ONLY

7. The deposited refuse will be consolidated, compacted and covered
with soil at least times per (week) (month) during the
summer and at least times per (week) (month) during the
winter.

8. The maximum width of the exposed working face-will be ft.
The maximum vertical height of the working face will be ft.

PART II

The applicant shall submit two copies of the following information
with the completed, signed application form:

A. Maps of the.site and surrounding area that clearly show the following:

Geographic Location Buildings
Surface Contours Airports w/in 2 Miles
Site Boundaries All Surface Waters
Roads and Railroads Wells w/in 1/4 Mile

B. Facility plans or drawings showing: (a) the existing site conditions,
(b) the proposed development steps, and (c) the proposed appearance
of the completed site. The plans shall include contours of five
foot intervals or less, and shall utilize a scale no less than one
inch equals forty feet unless specifically approved by the depart-
ment. These plans shall include, at a minimum, the location and
construction details of:

Surface Drainage Controls Visual Screening
Access and On-site Roads Pollution Control or
Disposal Trenches or Cells Monitoring Devices
Fences and Gates Significant Storage,
Buildings & Fixed Equipment Processing or Disposal
Soil Boring Locations Features
Monitoring Well Construction
Details

C. A narrative description of the proposed development and operation
procedures including those intended to prevent or control ground
and surface pollution, disease vectors, wildlife access, litter,
fires, odor, noise, and safety and nuisance problems.

D. For all landfilling/landspreading facilities: A soils report
based on test holes dug at representative locations to a depth
at least four feet deeper than the lowest level of proposed
solid waste deposition. The minimum number of holes based on
facility size shall be:
less than 10,000 ft2 ---------- one hole
10,000 ft2 to one acre ------- two holes
larger than one acre --------- two holes per acre

These numbers can be greatly reduced in large sites if the results
of initial borings indicate a uniform, predictable soils/hydrology
situation throughout the site.

The report shall include:

1. graphic representation of the soil profiles,

2. a discussion of the site's ground water hydrology based on
the test holes and data from any wells in the nearby area.

E. For all HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES:
Detailed plans and specifications of the facility, the wastes to
be accepted, methods and equipment for waste handling, treatment,
storage and disposal, pollution controls, safety equipment and
precautions, and emergency operating plans.

F. A letter from the local government certifying compliance with
local ordinances, zoning requirements, and coastal zone manage-
ment plans and regulations. If the applicant is not the owner
of the property, include a written statement from the property
owner detailing the arrangement giving the applicant control of
the facility for the proposed activity.

certify under penalty of perjury,
that all of the above information and exFibits are true, correct and complete.

Applicant's Signature Date

Submit two copies of all application materials to the appropriate regional
office indicated on the map on page 4.

PERMIT RENEWALS: A permittee that has a departmentally approved plan that
meets the requirements specified in this application form may apply for a
new permit by submitting a signed application form and a report of the
changes and progress that has occurred during the preceding permit period.

Those facilities without a currently acceptable plan shall submit all the
planning documents and data required by this application for departmental
review and approval prior to receiving a new permit.

'A 1.
,4
i7A ..;11
Ell

f 4%
f tO

RE
p.
Ju

j
An
-ind,
(9
IAD.
42.
IL 'T

N-J,

er,

vat:

nkl-

7z@

VP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z

I
I
i
ii
t
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
illimmillimillm I
3 6668 14101 7170
, -L'@ - @,,- ", " - @ , -- I I