The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinal Closure Plan I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RLMl8H14e8(10112tn) FISHERS ISLAND GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISTRICT FINAL CLOSURE PLAN Fishers Island Landfill Fishers Island, New York NOVEMBER 1999 d[b DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSu....ICH ASSOCIATES. P.C. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR FISHERS ISLAND GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISTRICT BY DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS WOODBURY, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 1999 +1468IF0310804.DOC(RJO) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 General .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Site Description ....................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 General Topography ................................................................................2-1 2.2 Limits of Waste .......................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Upland Landfill Area................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Spread and Cover Area................................................................ 2-3 2.3 Hydrogeology ... ..... ............. ..... .... ..... ...... ...... ... ....... ..... ..... ............... ........ 2- 3 2.4 Groundwater Quality ...............................................................................2-4 2.5 Surface Leachate .....................................................................................2-6 2.6 Explosive Gas... ........... .......................... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .......... ....... ........ 2-6 2. 7 Vectors ........... ..... ..... ... ...... ..... ........ ....... ..... ........ ..... ....... .......... ..... .......... 2-6 2.8 Wetlands......... ..... ..... ......... ............. ....... ... .......... ..... ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2-7 2.9 Surface Water. ..... ...... ...... ....... ... ..... .... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ... ......... ... 2-8 3.0 PROPOSED CLOSURE SYSTEM ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 General.. .... ..... ..... ... ....... ..... ..... ........ .... ... ..... ..... ........ ..... ........... ........ ... .... 3-1 3.2 Proposed Area of the Cap........................................................................3-2 3.3 Proposed Grading Plan............................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Site Preparation. ..... ....... ..... ..... ......... ... ... ..... ..... ...... ......... ......... ..... .......... 3-5 3.5 Geotextile ..... ..... ..... ....... ..... ..... ............ ........ ..... ............... ......... ..... ..... ..... 3-8 3.6 Gas Venting Layer.........................................................................,.........3-10 3.7 Geomembrane ... ..... ............ ..... ..... .......... ..... ..... .......... ......... ....... ....... ...... 3-14 3.8 Geocomposite Drainage Layer ................................................................ 3-18 3.9 Barrier Protection Layer .......................................................................... 3-22 3.10 Topsoil and Vegetation ........................................................................... 3-25 3 .11 Wetlands ......... ..... ................ ...... ... ............ ..... .......... ..... ............. .............. 3-28 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY .........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Slope Stability Analysis .......................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis.............................................................. 4-2 4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................ 4-7 . I 4681F03 I 0804.DOC(R II) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Title Page 5.0 HYDRAULIC EFFICIENCY .......................................................................... 5-1 6.0 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL..................................................... 6-1 6.1 General.................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Design Parameters................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Storm Water Disposal............................................................................. 6-2 6.4 Erosion Control Practices........................................................................ 6-3 7.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ...............................................................7-1 8.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE .......................................................... 8-1 9.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 9-1 List of Tables 3-1 Geotextile ................................................................................................. 3-9 3-2 60-Mil Textured HDPE Geomembrane ................................................. 3-15 3-3 Geocomposite Property Values .............................................................. 3-20 3-4 Geotextile . ................. ..... ............... ........ ................... ............... ........ ....... 3-21 4-1 Shear Strength Parameters........................................................................4_6 5-1 HELP Model - 4% Slope, No Geocomposite Drainage Layer Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981 .............................5-4 5-2 HELP Model- 33% Slope, No Geocomposite Drainage Layer Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981 .............................5-5 5-3 HELP Model - 4% Slope, Geocomposite Drainage Layer Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981 .............................5-7 5-4 HELP Model - 4% Slope, Geocomposite Drainage Layer Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981 .............................5-8 8-1 Construction Cost Estimate...................................................................... 8-2 · 14681F0310804.DOC(RI 1) ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures Page 1-1 Fishers Island Location Map ....................................................................1-2 1-2 Site Location Map ....................................................................................1-3 2-1 Limits of Waste ........................................................................................ 2-2 3-1 Cap Cross Section .................................................................................... 3-3 3-2 Average Frost Penetration ......................................................................3-13 4-1 Cross Section Location Map ....................................................................4-3 4-2 Profile A-A' ........ .......... ..... ............................. ....... ........ ............... ............ 4-4 4-3 Profile C-C' ..............................................................................................4-5 6-1 Rainfall Intensity "R" Factors ..................................................................6-8 9-1 Construction Schedule.............................................................................. 9-2 List of Appendices Test Pit Program Report......................................................................................... A Slope Stability Analysis ..........................................................................................B Help Model Results ........... ..... ...... ........... ............ .................. ....... ............... ......... ...C HydroCAD Results........... ........ ..... ..... ............... ........... ....... ..... ......... ..... ........... ..... D Results of August 1999 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling ......................E Data Validation Report for August 1999 Sampling Event...................................... F AttachmentslDrawings Title Sheet Symbols, Abbreviations and List of Drawings........................................................ I Existing Topography, Test Pit Locations and Limits of Waste............................... 2 Subgrade Grading Plan............................................................................................ 3 . 14681F0310804.DOC(R II) 1Il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Attachments/Drawings (continued) Page Final Grading Plan, Access Road and Energy Dissipaters...................................... 4 Wetlands Delineation Area, Area of Temporary Wetlands Disturbance and Wetlands Creation and hnprovement........................................... 5 Drainage Plan ". .......... ..... .......... ..... ........ ......... ............ ..... ....... ..... ............. .............. 6 Landfill Gas Control Plan .......................................................................................7 Plans and Profiles ..... ..................................... ............ ................. ..... ..... .......... ..... .... 8 Miscellaneous Details ........................ ........... ...... ...... ..... ..... ............ ..... ..... ....... ....... 9 Erosion Control Details ..... ............ ... ..... ........ ....... ....... ......... ......... ....... ............ ..... 10 + 1468\F0310804.IXJC(RI I) IV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en CD n .... -. o :J ...I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 . INTRODUCTION 1.1 General This Final Closure Plan has been prepared on behalf of the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District as the operator of the former Fishers Island Landfill, also referred to as the Pickett Landfill, Fishers Island, New York. The property on which the landfill is located is owned by Ruth Pickett and is leased to the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District. Purchase of this property by the District is currently being pursued. This plan is intended to address the engineering aspects of designing and constructing a landfill capping/closure system for the site. This document has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 2.15(c), Final Closure Plan. 1.2 Site Description The Fishers Island Landfill is located within the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Fishers Island is located approximately 4 miles south of Connecticut and 17 miles northeast of Long Island (see Figure I-I). The Fishers Island Landfill is an inactive municipal solid waste landfill located between Oriental Avenue and Ferry Road on Fishers Island (see Figure 1-2). The landfill property is approximately 10 acres of which approximately 5 to 6 acres have been used for landfilling (see Figure 1-2). Based on available information, the landfill was in operation from the early 1950s until 1991 when it was closed. Residents brought solid waste to the landfill until the early 1950' s. During this period waste was burned to reduce the volume. In 1953, the Town of Southold contracted a private hauler to collect the solid waste on the Island. In 1958, the District was chartered and another private hauler assumed collection service. This hauler, Fishers Island Farm, Inc., also managed the landfill. The management techniques employed by Fishers Island Farm are unknown and are assumed to have been a combination of burning and area fill. + 14681A0403803.DOC(R08) I-I ------------------- NEW JERSEY I ---1 -- - CONNECTICUT ~ . ""~ , / - --< NEW ~ '. ) // ("" , " ~ I n I ~ '- u u ~ i I ~ '" I ::l . ATlANTIC OCEAN L.i ~ G: o 30 1"""1o..o......_-_ SCALE IN !AILES 60 , ., ., . 0' 5 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNlY, NEW YORK cfu Dvirka and Bartilucci o Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. FISHERS ISlAND LOCATION MAP Cosulich Associates, p.c. FIGURE 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I '" <D .. - , ' . - .' --._---~- . ~- ," ,,/ . / ~=- ,,;.<= . ,,/'/ o,,--:a ~ .,/ ,,~=-I\:= -- -- . - o \ '" > . . ~~- -- -- ----- -- -- - - -- - - ------ ~_LIIT ./ or-..: ~ 1_ ___ \ NC COYER MEA 1 / -- - - --- / " " / ,/ ./ " " ( . w ~ .. ~ o 120' ~ 240' I '" <D .. 0: i5 d~ Dvirka and Bartilucci o Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNlY, NEW YORK SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1-2 . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Materials disposed at the landfill throughout its operating period are reported to be residential waste, white goods, scrap metal, construction debris, cars, tires and ash. In 1974, a separate metals dump was opened and metal goods were no longer placed in the landfill. Septage wastes were also disposed at the landfill. There is no indication of a septage lagoon having existed at the site, therefore, it is likely that the septage wastes were disposed within the solid waste mass. There are no records or other indications that hazardous waste was disposed at the landfill. The main portion of the landfill was the upland area that was reported to be trenched and landfilled with municipal solid waste. A spread and cover waste fill area also existed and is located on the northern and eastern portions of the landfill (see Figure 1-2). The waste mass in the upland area of the landfill comprises an average thickness of approximately 6 to 7 feet with a maximum thickness of about 18 feet and an average soil cover thickness of I to 2 feet. The thickness of waste in the spread and cover area to the north of the main upland portion of the landfill is up to 8 feet. On the eastern slope of the upland landfill area, the waste grades into the adjacent wetlands. The upland area is predominantly covered with vegetation consisting of grasses, goldenrod, ragweed and sumac. No landfilled refuse is exposed at the surface except on the eastern slope. Wetlands are located to the south, east and west of the landfill. . 1468\A0403803.DOC(R08) 1-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en (1) n .-to -. o ::J I\) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.0 . EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 General Topography The topography of the Fishers Island Landfill is fairly flat but slopes steeply to the adjacent wetlands in the eastern portion of the landfill. A large mound of stockpiled soil is located in the northwestern portion of the landfill. The highest point on the landfill, exclusive of the soil stockpile, is approximately 30 feet above mean sea level (ms\) and the wetlands adjacent to the landfill are approximately 10 feet above msl. 2.2 Limits of Waste As described in Section 1.0, there were two areas of landfilling on the site, the upland area and the spread and cover waste fill area. The waste material in the main upland landfill area has been described as municipal solid waste deposited primarily in trenches and contains the majority of the landfilled waste. The spread and cover area, which is located north and east of the upland landfill area, contains the oldest landfill material. The following provides a discussion of each of these areas based on observations of the test pit program conducted to define the limits of waste. The Test Pit Program Report is contained in Appendix A. 2.2.1 Voland Landfill Area Waste material encountered in the upland area consists of primarily household waste in plastic bags. Waste material in some areas was encountered during test pit excavations to groundwater, a depth of 18 feet below grade. The main body of concentrated waste mass comprises an average thickness of approximately 6 to 7 feet with an average soil cover thickness of about I to 2 feet. On the eastern slope of the upland landfill area, the waste grades into the adjacent wetlands. The extent of waste as determined as a result of the test pit program and available information is shown on Figure 2-1. + 1468\A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-1 F.!;k'fET~~ON ,..... , ?...... " .....~ ~, ~~ ~~ ~-- ......................... ~ > ~ ............... /' ~ '>, - /' , , /' ~ ___"'\ ............... _ _ --<OlliER lAND OF PICKm ~ ..... ............... _ ~ .. ~ -..... ~ '\. -- ~ \ ............... ~ \ WOODED - - ___ ~ ~ ~~ ,"- .----..-..- ,~ ~ ~~ ) \~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ p~ /,. fr j~ , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. ..- ~~ \ / , , \ \ MOUND DrTCH WETlANDS / al '" I '" <0 .... ~ ;;: WETlANDS al '" .... Oi c d~o Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates. P,C. LIMITS OF WASTE AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS /.......... , ............... /' ~W-5 ..... ..... ............... , , ..... ..... ............... ..... ..... ............... ..... ..... ............... ..... - - LEASED AREA 10 ACRES '" .~ WETlANDS - / / / - FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNlY. NEW YORK , , /' / / /~-6 / "-- / LEGEND. MONrroRING WELL/PIEZOMETER LOCAllON APPROXIMATE UMrT OF WASTE BASED ON MAY 1997 TEST PrT PROGRAII REPORTED UMrT OF WASTE BASED ON FANNING PHILUPS '" MOLNAR MARCH 1997 REPORT AND DISCUSSION WITH FORMER lANDRLl PERSONNEL .........?- o 120' ~ 240' I FIGURE 2-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 2.2.2 Smead and Cover Area . The waste material in the spread and cover area has been reported to have been deposited to a depth of 2 to 3 feet below grade, however, test pit excavations indicate waste as deep as 8 feet to the north-northeast of the upland landfill area. Test pits constructed in this area indicate that the lower lying land area to the north of the upland area is almost devoid of waste. Higher percentages of metal scraps compared to bagged waste were encountered in the lower lying land to the north-northeast of the upland area. The limits of waste for this area were primarily defined by information provided from interviews with personnel from the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District. It was also reported that waste was not deposited down onto the slopes on the south and west side of the upland area, and that wrecked cars were disposed on the northern side of the site. 2.3 Hydrogeology A Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for the Fishers Island Landfill was prepared by Fanning, Phillips and Molnar (FP&M) in May 1994. The investigation characterized the hydrogeologic conditions at the landfill and established a groundwater monitoring network for the landfill. Soil samples collected during the investigation indicated the presence of glacial deposits beneath the northern portion of the landfill and wetland deposits beneath the south and southeast portions of the landfill. The glacial deposits were described as light to medium brown fine sand interbedded with orange to light brown silt. The wetland material was described as black silt with abundant organic material and saturated. No clay layers or other low permeability layers were encountered. Based on the Hydrogeologic Investigation Report, groundwater flow direction is generally to the southeast and no groundwater divide is present on site. The average hydraulic conductivity, + 1468\A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I based .on the results of slug test data, .was determined to be 5.25 feet per day and the average horizontal groundwater flow velocity was determined to be 0.16 foot per day. 2.4 Groundwater Quality Groundwater samples were collected from seven groundwater monitoring wells (W-I through W-6 and MW-13) in August 1993 (see Figure 2-1). Each of the samples was analyzed for 6 NYCRR Part 360 Baseline Parameters with the exception of the groundwater sample collected from W-5, which was only analyzed for hexavalent chromium, color and volatile organic compounds due to insufficient sample volume. Based on the results of the analysis, three volatile organic compounds were detected in the downgradient well, however, the concentrations of these compounds did not exceed the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines. Exceedances of the NYSDEC standards/guidelines were noted only for color, turbidity, sodium, total dissolved solids, iron and manganese. A second round of groundwater samples were collected in May 1995. Samples were collected from six of the monitoring wells (W-I through W-4, W-6 and MW-13) and analyzed for Baseline Parameters. The results of the second round of sampling indicated similar results to the initial round with the exception of a slightly elevated level (above the groundwater standard of 5 ugll) of ethylbenzene (19 ugll) in MW-13. One private well used for irrigation purposes is located down gradient of the landfill. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) collected a sample from this well in June 1995. The results of the analysis did not indicate the presence of any parameters above NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines. In response to comments received from NYSDEC on the draft Closure Plan, a round of groundwater sampling was performed in August 1999. Groundwater samples were collected from wells MW-2, MW-4, MW-6 and MW-13. In accordance with NYSDEC's requirements, + 14681A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the samples collected from wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-6 were analyzed for Baseline Parameters, and the sample collected from MW -13 was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Due to the high turbidity values (>50 NTUs) detected during purging of wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-6, samples from these three wells were analyzed for total and dissolved metals. The results of the analysis of the samples collected in August 1999 are presented in Appendix E and the data validation report is presented in Appendix F. The volatile organic compounds chloroethane at 7 ugll and 1,1 - dichloroethane at 6 ugll were detected in MW-2 slightly above the Class GA standard of 5 ugll (which applies to both compounds). In MW-6, chlorobenzene was detected at 7 ugll which slightly exceeds the Class GA standard of 5 ugll. Chloroethane at 13 ugll, benzene at 2 ugll, chlorobenzene at 10 ugll, ethylbenzene at 7 ugll and 1, 4 - dichlorobenzene at 4 ugll were detected in MW-13 slightly above the Class GA groundwater standards of 5 ugll, I ugll, 5 ugll, 5 ugll and 3 ugll, respectively. Similar to the results of previous sampling discussed above, the inorganic parameters manganese and sodium were detected above the Class GA standards in the filtered groundwater sample collected from MW -6 during the August 1999 sampling event. Manganese and sodium were also detected above Class GA standards in the filtered sample from MW-2. In addition, magnesium was detected above the Class GA standard in the filtered sample collected from MW-6. The results of the sampling indicate that there appears to be a minor impact to groundwater down gradient of the landfill. Many of the exceedances of the inorganic parameters detected during the initial rounds of groundwater sampling were attributed to background levels and potential influences from the tidal wetlands adjacent to the landfill. The existing wells were constructed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 and have been determined to be an appropriate monitoring network that documents both upgradient and downgradient groundwater quality relative to the landfill site. .1468\A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.5 . Surface Leachate According to the FP&M Closure Investigation Report dated March 1997, NYSDEC personnel performed a surface leachate investigation at the site in 1994. During the investigation, minor iron staining and minor sheening of the surface water in the wetlands adjacent to the landfill was noted. Although this staining/sheen could be attributed to landfilling activities at the site, the NYSDEC recommended that no further action regarding the possible leachate be taken. 2.6 Explosive Gas The shallow water table and presence of wetlands to the east, south and west of the landfill act as barriers to landfill gas migration. During installation of groundwater monitoring wells W-4 and W-5 along the northern border of the landfill, negligible amounts of methanellandfill gas were detected. Air monitoring was performed to determine the percent of methane gas in relation to its lower explosive limit in the air during the excavation of test pits in the landfill. No readings above zero percent lower explosive limit were detected in the breathing zone. The only percent lower explosive limit reading measured during excavation of the test pits was a reading of 4 percent from directly over the waste. Based upon the information obtained during the field investigations, it appears that the landfill is not generating significant amounts of methane gas. With respect to migration of any gases generated, the on-site investigations also did not identify any dead or dying vegetation that could be attributable to methane gas and any geologic conditions that would increase the potential for landfill gas migration. 2.7 Vectors A vector inspection was performed by the SCDHS in February 1997. The results of the inspection indicated that there was no rodent activity at the landfill that was related to any +14681A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I landfilling activities. Visits to the site performed by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B) and FP&M personnel have never noted the presence of any vectors. Upon closure of the landfill in 1991, all waste material was covered. 2.8 Wetlands The freshwater wetland boundary was delineated by NYSDEC personnel on July 14, 1998 and by D&B personnel on July 23, 1998. The delineation performed by D&B agrees with the delineation performed by NYSDEC. The delineation of the wetland boundary has been surveyed by a licensed land surveyor as shown on the attached drawings. The freshwater wetlands boundary generally parallels the toe of slope of the upland portion of the landfill in the east. Vegetation on the landfill edge is generally quite dense and consists largely of common sumac, staghorn sumac and catbrier. Wetland vegetation approximately 40 feet to each side of monitoring well MW-6 is dominated by common reed and occasional red maples. Moving to the north around the perimeter of the landfill, the dominant vegetative type changes to jewelweed. These areas had no standing water at the time of the survey although the soils were very poorly drained and water would accumulate in footprints. A small ditched stream with very low flow traverses this wetland area and drains to the east/southeast, presumably toward the ocean. This area is less densely vegetated, probably due to the denseness of the tree canopy in the area. Several stands of cinnamon fern were noted in this area. One area east of the toe of slope, as shown on Drawing 5, is strewn with numerous glass bottles. The size and style of the bottles indicates that this accumulation is related to past landfill operations and the bottles were well over 15 years old. North of the glass strewn area is an area of metal debris. Items include the remnants of a refrigerator, galvanized well water tank, fuel storage tank, metal fence post, pulley systems, old radios and other appliances. Except for +1468\A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I galvanized materials, all metals were rusted to the point of crumpling. There was no indication that the fuel oil tank had product in it at the time of disposal. 2.9 Surface Water In addition to the groundwater sampling performed in August 1999 discussed in Section 2.4 above, a sample of surface water was also collected during the sampling event in accordance with NYSDEC's comments on the draft Closure Plan. The surface water sample was collected from the wetlands east of the landfill and analyzed for Baseline Parameters, as required by NYSDEC. The results of the analyses are presented in Appendix E and the data validation report is presented in Appendix F. In accordance with discussions with NYSDEC, the results of the surface water sample analyses have been compared to the standards for Class C, Type W (Wildlife Protection) waters. As indicated in the tables in Appendix E, of the parameters analyzed for, mercury is the only constituent for which a Class C, Type W standard has been published in the Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series (1.1.1) - Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. Mercury was detected in the surface water sample at a concentration of 1.9 ugll which exceeds the Class C, Type W standard of 0.0026 ugll. The source of mercury, as well as other elevated levels of metals in the surface water sample, are likely not attributable to the landfill, since the concentrations of metals in the groundwater samples are in general substantially lower. The elevated concentration of metals in the surface water are likely the result of the turbid nature of the sample (>850 NTUs) and leaching of metals from the sediment in the water sample during digestion/analysis. t1468\A0403804.DOC(RIO) 2-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 . PROPOSED CLOSURE SYSTEM 3.1 General The proposed closure system for the capping of the Fishers Island Landfill will consist of a layered system of soils and geosynthetics to provide a cost effective low permeability hydraulic barrier which will mitigate the vertical percolation of precipitation into the underlying waste mass. The primary functions of the layered capping system are as follows: · Mitigate the vertical percolation of precipitation into the underlying waste mass, · Mitigate the generation of leachate resulting from contact between precipitation and the waste mass, · Mitigate the release of leachate to the groundwater system by inhibiting the generation of leachate, · Control the accumulation of landfill gas below the capping system and mitigate the potential for lateral migration, · Mitigate the potential for direct contact with waste, · Provide control of surface runoff and subsurface drainage to promote the efficiency of the hydraulic barrier, · Resist the erosional forces of storm events, · Provide physical protection to the hydraulic barrier layer of the capping system, and · Provide for an aesthetically acceptable appearance of the completed system, suitable for its intended purpose. The proposed capping system is intended to achieve the above objectives within the framework of the existing site conditions and constraints. .1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The proposed capping system IS intended to provide general conformance to the regulations and performance criteria of 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facilities. The proposed capping system, described from bottom to top, will be as follows: . Existing municipal solid waste · Contour grading material, thickness varies, minimum thickness of 6 inches · Geotextile separation layer · Gas venting layer ( 6 inches) · 60-mil textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane · Geocomposite drainage layer (on 33% slope) · Barrier protection layer of 12 inches · Topsoil or equivalent vegetative growth medium layer of 6 inches . Vegetation . Erosion control blanket A pictorial presentation of the proposed capping system is presented in Figure 3-1. 3.2 Proposed Area of the Cap As previously discussed, a test pit program was conducted to establish the horizontal and vertical extent of the waste in order to establish the area of the landfill property which requires closure. The findings of this test pit program and information provided by Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District personnel indicate that the waste mass is concentrated in trenches and most likely exists throughout the upland area. The waste mass comprises approximately 5.5 acres in the upland landfill area and a portion of the spread and cover area not in the wetlands. + 1468\F0817801.DOqR06) 3-2 ------------------- '" o I ., '" ... ~ 6" VEGETATIVE GROWTH MEDIUM '" ill ... O! 5 12" BARRIER PROTECTION LAYER .).)~ . S~O ~~ WETLANDS MAINTENANCE ROAD GRAVEL PAD AT PIPE OUTLET 4" PERFORATED HOPE DRAIN PIPE WITH INTEGRAL GEOTEXTILE WRAP GEOTEXTILE 60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE ~'':''~: ::.:)~::;.. I .-......,..... , ~~:~;;;:.;~:;Tl. ... ~. ,. ..~ p I "..,....,....... I ;t;;:;;~%~W I .........". ) I {}~~~.~:;.:::<:., I ...." ......., : Z?::t~~~f:~ L___..J IJ'-6~ I . o I '" FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK cfu Dvirka and Bartilucci PLANNED CAP CROSS-SECTION o Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosutich Associates, P,C. FIGURE 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Based on the location of the wetlands on the eastern portion of the landfill as delineated by NYSDEC, the area of the cap will not include the portion of the waste in the spread and cover area in the wetlands. However, during construction of the anchor trench, the contractor will be required to record locations and depths of waste encountered and this information will be documented in the Construction Certification Report. Based on a meeting between the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District and NYSDEC on April 14, 1997, due to the age of the waste and the dense vegetation that has grown over the buried waste in the wetlands, and the damage to the wetlands that would occur if removal of the waste was attempted, NYSDEC determined that the waste could remain in place. However, all visible solid waste debris within the area bordered by the lines labeled 'Proposed Limit of Cap' and 'Reported Limit of Waste' shown on Drawing 5 on the eastern side of the landfill, that are readily accessible and in areas where removal will not destroy trees of 6-inch diameter or greater, will be removed to a depth of two (2) feet below grade. The metal debris and glass piles identified during delineation of the wetlands will be removed and either placed under the cap or removed off-site and properly disposed. The contract documents for closure construction will prohibit operation of heavy equipment east of the line labeled 'Reported Limit of Waste', shown on Drawing 5 on the east side of the landfill, with the exception of the area where excavation for wetlands creation and improvement is planned. After completion of removal of solid waste debris outside of the limits of the landfill cap, the ground surface will be graded to conform with adjacent topography. The grading will be finished with six (6) inches of topsoil and the topsoil will be seeded with a SO/50 mixture of annual rye grass and switch grass at the rate of 100 pounds per acre. 3.3 Proposed Grading Plan The ground surface of the Fishers Island Landfill presents a fairly flat to steep sloping terrain on the north, south, east and west sides of the landfill. The proposed grading plan attempts to make use of the existing terrain to the greatest extent practical in order to minimize the need +1468\F081780I.DOC(R06) 3-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I for gross reshaping and filling of the site. This approach proposes to make use of a minimum of 4 percent slope stipulated by 6 NYCRR Part 360 on the upper portion of the landfill. In areas of the site where the existing grades provide for slopes in excess of 4 percent, the proposed grades will attempt to parallel the existing shape. The proposed maximum slope is 33 percent which complies with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 for a maximum slope of 33 percent. The proposed subgrade grading plan is presented on Drawing 3. The grading of the landfill will allow for sheet flow runoff of surface drainage from a large portion of the landfill to the wetlands located on the eastern side of the landfill. Drainage from the remaining portion of the landfill will be collected in drainage swales and directed to these same wetlands. Further discussion of site drainage is provided in Section 6.0. The overall height of the landfill will increase by approximately 5 feet from the existing grade of 26 feet to 31 feet above mean sea level. 3.4 Site Preparation The first step in preparing the site for construction of the proposed capping system will be the shaping and grading of the existing ground surface to develop a prepared subgrade. Prior to any grading, the existing vegetation within the area of the cap will be cleared. Woody vegetation such as trees will be cut down, chipped and used on-site in the perimeter areas not being capped. Tree stumps, will be excavated and reduced in size on site for on-site or off-site use. Brush and ground cover will be cleared by thoroughly and completely tracking the areas with a bulldozer to grind up the vegetation and incorporate it into the loosened soil. The existing vegetation will be cleared prior to proceeding with any other aspects of the cap construction. However, the contractor will be permitted to phase the clearing and grubbing operation to make use of the existing vegetation for erosion control purposes. After clearing, the existing ground surface will be cut, graded and/or filled as required to achieve prepared subgrade elevations. +1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . A service/maintenance roadway. will be constructed around the landfill in order to provide access to the landfill during construction for cap installation and a portion of this roadway will remain after construction for cap maintenance. The roadway will be approximately 12 feet wide. Along the eastern side of the landfill the contractor may need to place sand to stabilize the work surface during construction in this area. A silt fence, and if necessary, hay bails will be placed between the work and the wetlands to minimize sediment deposition. A geotextile will be placed at the bottom of the excavation and 12 inches of crushed stone will be place over the geotextile for construction of the road. Excavated waste materials resulting from cuts or excavations will be relandfilled on site in areas requiring fill. As previously discussed, the metal and glass debris piles noted during the wetlands delineation will be removed and placed under the cap (or removed off-site). Relandfilled waste will be spread in lifts up to 2 feet in thickness, covered with a 6-inch lift of general fill and compacted using a landfill compactor or pad-footed vibratory compactor. At the end of each day, exposed waste in cut areas and/or relandfilled areas will be covered with a 6-inch layer of daily cover (general fill). The layer of daily cover will be compacted with a landfill compactor or pad-footed vibratory compactor. Open excavations will be graded and protected from the accumulation of surface runoff. Areas requiring fill to attain the proposed prepared subgrade elevations will be constructed with controlled lifts of compacted general fill. The fill will be placed and spread in lifts of uniform thickness then compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. The moisture content of the fill material will be controlled to facilitate compaction and the maximum compacted lift thickness will be limited to 6 inches. Compacted lifts will be tested to determine the in-place density and moisture content by nuclear methods at a minimum frequency of nine tests per acre per lift. At a minimum, 6 inches of compacted contour grading material will be placed over the entire surface of the landfill to be capped. Existing ground surfaces which coincide with + 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I proposed prepared subgrade elevations and exhibit waste at the surface will be scraped to a depth of 6 inches to allow for placement of the contour grading material. In areas where the existing surface presents itself as being suitable for establishment of the prepared subgrade surface, scraping of the surface will be eliminated and the existing surface will be accepted as the prepared subgrade surface. The subgrade surface will be proofrolled with a smooth drum vibratory roller to provide a smooth, uniformly sloping, unyielding surface. Depressions, soft spots and yielding areas detected by proofrolling will be remedied by recompaction or excavation and replacement as appropriate. The prepared subgrade surface will be free from protruding rocks, litter, debris and disturbance due to erosion which may inhibit intimate contact with the overlying geomembrane. The general fill/contour grading material will be obtained from on-site or off-site sources subject to inspection, testing and pre-approval. The majority of general fill will be obtained from the soil stock pile presently on-site (approximately 3,000 cubic yards). The general fill/contour grading material will be clean, inert well graded, granular material generally free from any organic material, roots, stumps, chunks of earth or clay, shale or other soft, poor durability (if necessary) particles. Reprocessed or recycled soils containing incidental fractions of concrete and asphalt will be permitted due to the scarcity of virgin soil sources on Fishers Island. The general fill/contour grading material will conform to the following gradation: Sieve Size 6 inch No. 40 No. 200 Percent Passing Bv Weight 100 0-70 0-40 The 6-inch lift or layer of contour grading material which will serve as the prepared subgrade for the overlying capping system will be constructed with contour grading material with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and otherwise be in accordance with the above gradation requirements. + 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . The prepared subgrade surface will be surveyed for as-built conditions. Conformance testing of the general filVcontour grading material obtained from an off-site source will be performed a minimum of once. Testing will include gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and moisture/density relationships (ASTM DI557 - Modified Proctor minimum of 90 percent dry density). Approval from NYSDEC will be required prior to the use of any alternative general filVcontour grading material. 3.5 Geotextile Immediately above the prepared subgrade surface, the capping system will be constructed in a layered arrangement. The first layer placed will be a geotextile fabric to provide for vertical separation of the two soils, allow for vertical migration of landfill gas from the waste mass up to the gas venting layer, allow for vertical percolation and prevent blending of the gas venting layer with the subgrade materials to maintain the 6 inch layer. The geotextile will be a nominal 8 ounce per square yard continuous filament polyester or polypropylene, nonwoven, needlepunched fabric. The geotextile polymer composition will be at least 95 percent polypropylene or polyester by weight. The geotextile will conform to the properties listed in Table 3-1. The geotextile will be deployed in the direction of the slope, overlap adjacent panels by 3 inches and will be seamed by a sewn, double thread lockstitch Type 401 or equivalent. The seam will be a "flat" or "prayer" seam. Geotextile deployment will be controlled to ensure that the placed geotextile is not exposed to sunlight for more than 14 days. Prior to placing the geotextile, the prepared subgrade will be visually inspected to evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and ensure that the surface is properly compacted, smooth +1468\F1l81780I.DOC(R06) 3-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3-1 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN GEOTEXTILE Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier(!) Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 oz/sq yd 7.9 MARV Thickness, t ASTMDI777 mils 90 MARV Grab Strength(2) ASTM D4632 Ibs 210 MARV Grab Elongation(2) ASTM D4632 % 50 MARV Trapezoid Tear ASTM D4533 Ibs 85 MARV Strength(2) Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 Ibs 100 MARV Mullen Burst ASTM D3786 pSI 320 MARV Strength Water Flow Rate ASTM D449 I gpm/sq ft 100 MARV Permitivity ASTM D4491 sec'! 1.3 MARV Permeability ASTM D4491 cm/sec 0.3 MARV Apparent Opening ASTM D4751 sieve size 70 MARV Size (ADS) mm 0.212 Transmissivity ASTM D4716 MARV @0.3 psi gpm/ft 0.11 @14.5 psi gpm/ft om @29.0 psi gpm/ft 0.04 UV Resistance ASTM D4355 % strength retained 70 MARV pH Resistance 2-13 Range (1)MARV - Minimum average roll value. (2)Values in the weakest principal direction. +!468\F08!7801.DOC(R06) 3-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and uniform. The surface will be reasonably free of stones, organIc matter, irregularities, protrusions, loose soil and any abrupt changes in grade that could damage the geotextile. Quality control testing will be performed by the geotextile manufacturer. Conformance testing of the delivered material will be performed only if the need is perceived based upon an examination of the materials. The proposed geotextile satisfies the filter criteria of 6 NYCRR Part 360. The geotextile has a permeability on the order of 100 times the permeability of the overly gas venting soil and therefore satisfies the requirement that it be at least 10 times the permeability of the soil. The retention criteria prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 360 is also satisfied. The apparent opening size (095) of 0.212 mm is sufficient to retain a soil with 15 percent passing a No. 200 sieve with a multiplier of 3. The overlying gas venting layer is limited by an approved variance to a maximum of 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Therefore, the d85 (15 percent passing) value of the gas venting soil will be a particle size larger than a No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm). The ratio of the apparent opening size (095) of the geotextile is between two and three times the d85 value of the soil as required. 3.6 Gas Venting Layer In lieu of the 12-inch thick soil layer meant to collect gas produced by the landfill, a six inch layer with one gas vent per acre will be constructed. The exception to this will be where gas vents are constructed. As shown on the drawings, the gas venting layer will be 12 inches thick where the gas vent cross arms are embedded in the gas venting layer. The gas venting layer will be installed as one continuous layer over the area to be capped. The gas venting layer will have a coefficient of hydraulic conductivity (permeability) equal to or greater than I x 10-3 cm/sec. In addition to serving as gas venting medium, this sand layer will also provide a cushion for the geomembrane. The soils used to construct the gas venting layer will be imported from off-site sources. + 1468\F0817801.DOQR06) 3-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I . As discussed in Section 2.6, during installation of groundwater monitoring wells W-4 and W-5 along the northern border of the landfill, negligible amounts of methane were detected. In addition, air monitoring performed to determine the percent of methane gas in relation to its lower explosive limit in the air during the excavation of test pits in the landfill showed no readings above zero percent lower explosive limit. The only percent lower explosive limit reading measured during excavation of the test pits was a reading of 4 percent from directly over the waste. Therefore, due to the low levels of explosive gas detected during on-site investigations a 6-inch gas venting layer will be sufficient to passively vent gas from the landfill. As described above, a geotextile will be placed beneath the gas venting layer to preclude loss of the high permeability material into the underlying general fill. Seven gas vents will be installed over the landfill. Six vents will address the Part 360 requirement of one vent per acre on the landfill. The gas vents would be installed in order to provide for passive relief of landfill gas which has accumulated below the geomembrane. The relief vent includes a 10 foot long 6-inch diameter Schedule 80 slotted PVC cross arm (slot size 0.12 inch) embedded in the gas venting layer. Immediately surrounding the screen will be 12 inches of washed rounded gravel. The vertical slotted riser pipe will extend downwards a minimum of 5 feet into the waste mass. The open end of the vent (above grade gooseneck fitting) will be constructed above grade with at least 3 feet of clearance to the ground surface. A gas vent schematic is provided on Drawing 9. The vent will function based upon differential pressure between the underside of the geomembrane where positive gas pressure may accumulate and atmospheric pressure at the exposed open end of the vent. The gas venting layer will serve as a permeable layer of soil which will allow for the lateral transmission of landfill gas which may accumulate below the geomembrane to points of removal at the landfill gas vents. The gas venting layer serves several purposes in the function of the capping system which include the following: . 1468\F081780 I.DOC(R06) 3-11 I I I I I I I I I I I . I I t I I I I . The uppermost surface of the gas venting layer provides for a smooth, uniformly sloped, well compacted surface for the installation of the overlying geomembrane. . The gas venting layer serves as a permeable layer of soil which will allow for the lateral movement of landfill gas below the geomembrane. The gas venting layer, in combination with the vents, will allow for the passive relief of landfill gas which vertically migrates to the underside of the geomembrane. The relief of landfill gas via the gas venting layer will inhibit the formation of positive gas pressures below the geomembrane. In turn, the relief of these pressures will minimize vertical uplift forces on the geomembrane and reduce the potential for lateral migration of the landfill gas to areas beyond the cap and the property boundaries. . The gas venting layer serves as a free draining, low fines content, permeable layer below the geomembrane which, in the event of deep frost penetration into the capping system, is not prone to frost heave which would impose stresses on the geomembrane. In general, the average depth of frost penetration for the Fishers Island area is on the order of 15 to 20 inches as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau (see Figure 3-2). Combining the 6 inch topsoil layer, the 12 inch barrier protection layer and the 6 inch gas venting layer, the 24 inch total depth exceeds the maximum frost penetration of 20 inches. The inherent nature of the gas venting layer as prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 360 provides this added benefit as a conservative design condition. The gas venting layer will be installed directly on top of the geotextile separation layer as one single lift using low ground pressure machines. The gas venting layer will be placed at a rate corresponding to deployment of the geotextile to ensure that the geotextile is not exposed to the elements for more than 14 calendar days. Wheeled vehicles will not be permitted to travel directly on the geotextile or on a layer of gas venting material less than 3 feet in thickness (temporary travel ways). Grade control for placement of the gas venting layer will utilize non-intrusive methods such as laser, stanchions, traffic cones, etc., with the selection to be at the discretion of the construction contractor. The in- place layer will have a compacted lift thickness of 6 inches. The layer will be compacted to achieve a minimum of 90 percent maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) and will provide a smooth, regular surface free of protrusions, debris, loose soil, and other conditions which may be deleterious to the geomembrane andlor prevent intimate t14681f1J817801.DOC(R06) 3-12 ------------------- ~ .- ~ ;\ o I '" <0 ... W ~ GO 18 ... <i is '5 ~ 3540 8 7 13 3830 2.~38a:: "a'. 8030 13 87 9 ~4a 66364a '3 80 ':z .4a'5 <4 , 6 ~a'- < a - 8:Z'~' 6 'a 54 <6 IS 3 4 ~ _ 2. ~ a,a 48 25 I ':z' 38 < 118 6'4 - 20 ~ ~ :z0:Z:z <. 3 4a 30 !4J' 5 C' 1"1' 6 5., 's ,3'1 ,,, , Ie <4 :z <, '2/ 2, 'IS ISO 'I' , "70'\ I- a ~75 'a'~~_ I :: 7~_ · :: ../,:~. o. " '<,10 6) 4 :z :z 8 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL 54 48 AVERAGE DEPTH OF FROST PENETRATION IIN. I SOURCE: U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU FISHERS ISlAND lANDFill SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK AVERAGE FROST PENETRATION d0 Dvirka and Bortilucci o Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich FIGURE 3-2 Associates, P.C. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I contact between the geomembrane and the surface of the gas venting layer. The moisture content of the soil will be controlled to facilitate compaction. The gas venting soil will be natural sand and will consist of hard, strong, durable particles which are free from a coating or any injurious material or other deleterious substances. The soil will be virgin, select, clean, inert, well graded granular material, free of any organic materials, roots, stumps, chunks of earth or clay, shale or other soft, poor durability particles, construction and demolition debris, reprocessed or recycled soils, concrete or other foreign material and have less than 5 percent of the material by weight pass the No. 200 sieve. All other material will pass the 3/8-inch sieve. The minimum coefficient of permeability will be I x 1003 cm/sec as determined by ASTM D2434 - Test for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head). The source of supply will be subject to prequalification testing and acceptance. During construction, the imported soils will be sampled at a frequency of once per 1,000 cubic yards and tested for gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and once per 2,500 cubic yards and tested for hydraulic conductivity (permeability) ASTM D2434. The finished surface of the gas venting layer will be examined for its suitability for deployment of the geomembrane. The in-place thickness of the gas venting layer will be confirmed on a 100-foot by 100- foot grid pattern by hand digging test holes to the geotextile surface. A straightedge or board will be used to span the holes to reference the grade surface. The average of three depth measurements will be recorded as the actual depth of the lift. The average thickness of the compacted lift will be no less than 6 inches. 3.7 Geomembrane The proposed geomembrane to serve as the hydraulic barrier layer in the capping system will be a 60-mil, textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) sheet or equivalent as provided by 6 NYCRR Part 360. The HDPE geomembrane will conform to the physical properties listed in Table 3-2. + 1468\F\l817801.DOC(R06) 3-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3-2 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN 60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE Property Test Method Units Specified Value QuaIifiers(l) Thickness ASTM D751 Mils 54 Minimum Density ASTM D1505 glcc 0.94 Minimum Melt Flow Index ASTM D1238 gllO minutes 0.4 Maximum Condition E (190oC, 2.16 kg.) Carbon Black % ASTM D1603 % 2-3 Carbon Black ASTM 03015 Rating A-I, A-2, B-1 Dispersion Tensile Properties ASTM D638 Type IV, 2" gauge length Dumb-bell @2ipm . Strength at Yield PPI 140 MARy(2) . Strength at Break PPI 75 MARy(2) . Elongation at Yield % 13 MARY . Elongation at Break % 150 MARY Tear Resistance ASTMDIOO4 Pounds 45 MARY DieC Puncture Resistance FfMS IOlB Pounds 80 MARY Method 2065 Environmental Stress ASTM D1693 Hours 1500 Minimum Crack 10% Igepal, 500C Dimensional Stability ASTM D1204 % change :t2 Maximum lOOoC, 1 hour Thermal Stability OIT ASTM D3895 Minutes 2000 Minimum 130oC, 800 PSI O2 Low Temperature ASTM D746 Degree F -107 Maximum Brittleness Procedure B +1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I Table 3-2 (continued) FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN 60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE Property Test Method Units Specified Value Qualifiers(l) Coefficient of Linear ASTM D696 x 10-4 cm! 2.0 Maximum Thermal Expansion cmoC Volatile Loss ASTMDl203 % 0.3 Maximum Water Absorption ASTM D570 % 0.1 Maximum Resistance to Soil ASTM 03083 Burial (as modified in NSF 54 Appendix A) . Tensile Strength at % change 10 Maximum Yield and Break . Elongation at Yield % change 10 Maximum and Break Hydrostatic Resistance ASTMD751 PSI 350 MARV Seam Strengths ASTM D4437 . Peel Strength (Wedge) PPI 88 & FTB Minimum . Peel Strength (Extrusion) PPI 63 & FTB Minimum . Shear Strength PPI 151 & FTB Minimum (I) MARV - Minimum average roll values. (2) The values given correspond to a yield stress of 2,300 psi and a break stress of 1,250 psi for textured HDPE geomembrane. FTB - Film tearing bond + 1468\f1)817801.DOC(R06) 3-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The geomembrane will be in contact with the underlying gas venting layer and the overlying geocompositelbarrier protection layer. The geomembrane will not be in direct contact with the waste or leachate generated by the waste. Therefore, the chemical compatibility of the geomembrane materials and the waste materials should not be at issue. Nonetheless, HDPE geomembrane is well documented for its use in landfill liner systems as both bottom liner systems and capping systems. For the purpose of this project, site-specific chemical compatibility of the proposed geomembrane is not warranted. The geomembrane will be installed on the uppermost surface of the gas venting layer. The prepared surface will be inspected, corrected as necessary and accepted prior to the day's deployment of geomembrane. The geomembrane will be furnished in standard roll widths and standard roll lengths. There will be no special requirements for extra long or custom roll lengths. Geomembrane panels will be deployed in the direction of the slope. Adjacent panels will be seamed by either the fusion weld or extrusion weld process. All seams will be nondestructively tested in total and destructively tested at a frequency no less than once per 500 feet of seam length. Conformance samples will be obtained at a frequency of once per 100,000 square feet of geomembrane. Testing of the conformance samples will be performed, at the discretion of the certifying engineer based upon field observation, as well as the geomembrane fabrication quality control data. Textured geomembrane is proposed to be used throughout the project rather than require that smooth sheet be used in the flatter areas and textured sheet in the steeper areas. The purpose of this approach is to avoid two types of liner material on the project site, confusion during construction over where each is to be used, avoid transition areas in the liner, as well as minimize the generation of scrap and partial roll excess associated with a two-product system. Of more importance is the fact that the use of textured geomembrane with an overlying geocomposite will + 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I not promote an interface between the geomembrane and the geocomposite which exhibits a low interface friction susceptible to sliding or displacement during construction. At face value, a smooth geomembrane would suffice on the proposed flat slopes, but its merits would be readily overshadowed by displacement during construction. The textured geomembrane also provides for enhanced interface friction with the underlying gas venting layer when compared to a smooth geomembrane. Penetrations of the liner material for the construction of landfill gas vents will be sealed with a fabricated pipe boot. The flange of the pipe boot will be welded to the geomembrane. The barrel of the pipe boot will be secured with stainless steel band clamps or batten strips as appropriate and sealed with a neoprene strip. All geomembrane panels will be uniquely identified with a panel number which is correlated to the roll number and fabrication (production) quality control test data. Quality control test data will be reviewed prior to deployment and any material with questionable or unacceptable test data or documentation will not be utilized. Upon completion, an as-built panel layout will be prepared identifying, as a minimum, panel numbers (correlated to roll numbers), seam numbers, destructive sample numbers and locations, repairs, patches, etc. The free end of the in-place geomembrane which exists at the perimeter of the capped area will be secured in an anchor trench. The overlying geocomposite will also be secured in this anchor trench. The anchor trench will be backfilled with barrier protection layer material and tamped to provide a nominal 90 percent Proctor density with the emphasis on not damaging the geosynthetic materials. 3.8 Geocomposite Drainage Layer A geocomposite drainage layer will be installed immediately above the textured geomembrane over the 33 percent sloped area and extending approximately IO feet into the 4 percent slope area. The geocomposite drainage layer will serve as a lateral or horizontal drainage +1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I medium to relieve the potential for developing a significant hydraulic head of water above the geomembrane. As discussed in Section 4.0, the geocomposite drainage layer will mitigate the potential for the barrier protection layer and the topsoil layer from becoming saturated in the 33 percent slope area and compromising the stability and effectiveness of the overall capping system. Geocomposite will also be installed above the geomembrane in the drainage swale. The geocomposite drainage layer will consist of a geosynthetic drainage layer (geonet) core with an 8-ounce per square yard geotextile heat fused to both the upper and lower surfaces. The upper geotextile will serve as a separation/filter layer to the overlying barrier protection layer. The lower geotextile will serve to secure the geocomposite to the textured geomembrane through interface friction. The geocomposite drainage layer will have the physical properties detailed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The geocomposite drainage layer will be installed directly on top of the geomembrane, in the required area, after the prepared surface of the geomembrane has been inspected, tested and accepted. Deployment of the geocomposite drainage layer will be coordinated with the placement of the overlying barrier protection layer to ensure that the geotextiles will not be exposed to the elements for more than 14 calendar days. The geocomposite drainage layer will be deployed in the direction of the slope. The lower geotextiles of adjacent panels will be overlapped. The drainage net cores will be overlapped and secured by tying with nylon cable ties. The upper geotextiles will be seamed by sewing using a double-thread lockstitch Type 401 or equivalent. The seam will be a "flat" or "prayer" seam. All terminal ends or edges of the geocomposite will be finished by seaming the upper and lower geotextiles by sewing as described above. The geocomposite drainage layer will convey subsurface flow resulting from precipitation which has infiltrated the topsoil and barrier protection layers. The direction of flow will follow the direction of the slope and convey the water to toe drains. These drains will be constructed .1468\F0817801.DOqR06) 3-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I Table 3.3 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN GEOCOMPOSITE PROPERTY VALUES Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier Geonet Component: Polymer Composition % 95 polyethylene Minimum by weight Polymer Specific ASTM D792 0.94 MARV Gravity Polymer Me]t Index ASTM D]238 g/IO min 0.3 MARY Carbon Black Content ASTM D ]603 % 2-3 Range Foaming Agents N/A % 0.0 Maximum Nomina] Thickness ASTM D374C inches 0.20 MARY Compressibility @ % 50 Maximum 20,000 psi Peak Tensi]e Strength ASTM D638 I bs/ft 575 MARY (machine direction) modified Flow Capacity @ ASTM D47]6 gprnlft 9.5 Gradient of ] @ 500 psf Geotextile See Tab]e 3-4 Component: Geocomposite: Peel Strength ASTM F904 or grnlin 500 Minimum ASTMD4]3 Note: All values represent minimum average roll values (i.e., any roll in a lot should meet or exceed the values in this tab]e). + 1468\F0817801.DOqR06) 3-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3-4 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN GEOCOMPOSITE PROPERTY VALVES - GEOTEXTILE Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier(1) Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 ozlsq yd 7.9 MARV Thickness, t ASTM DI777 mils 90 MARV Grab Strength(2) ASTM D4632 lbs 210 MARV Grab Elongation(2) ASTM D4632 % 50 MARV Trapezoid Tear ASTM D4533 lbs 85 MARV Strength(2) Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 lbs 100 MARV Mullen Burst Strength ASTM 03786 psi 320 MARV Water Flow Rate ASTM D4491 gpm/sq ft 100 MARV Permitivity ASTMD4491 sec.! 1.3 MARV Permeability ASTM D4491 em/see 0.3 MARV Apparent Opening Size ASTM D4751 sieve size 70 MARV (AOS) mm 0.212 Transmissivity ASTM D4716 MARV . @ 0.3 PSI gpm/ft 0.11 . @14.5PSI gpm/ft 0.07 . @29.0 PSI gpm/ft 0.04 UV Resistance ASTM 04355 % strength 70 MARV retained pH Resistance 2-13 Range Notes: 1. MARV - Minimum average roll value. 2. Values in the weakest principal direction. +!468\F08!7801.DOC(R06) 3-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I every 50 feet along the eastern side of the landfill at the base of the slope. These toe drains will be constructed of a pipe extension which will be installed to protrude through the overlying soil layers to "daylight" the flow onto a gravel bed. At the base of the slope the gravel bed will be placed between the toe of slope and roadway (see attached Drawing 9). 3.9 Barrier Protection Layer The barrier protection layer will be installed directly above the geomembrane over the entire area to be capped. The barrier protection layer will be installed as a compacted lift of 12 inches in thickness. The barrier protection layer is intended to provide physical protection to the hydraulic barrier (geomembrane) against the effects of frost penetration, roots, erosion, burrowing animals and the elements. The proposed 12-inch thickness of the barrier protection layer combined with the proposed 6-inch thickness of topsoil and 6-inch thickness of the gas venting layer will provide adequate frost protection for the hydraulic barrier. As discussed in Section 3.6, the Fishers Island Landfill is located in a zone where the average depth of frost penetration is determined to be between IS and 20 inches. For this discussion, the average depth of frost penetration will be taken as 20 inches, however, Fishers Island being surrounded by water is likely in a more temperate area compared to inland and the average frost penetration depth is likely closer to IS inches. The occurrence of frost penetration above the proposed geomembrane barrier is not considered to be detrimental to the integrity of the geomembrane given that it will not result in the displacement of the membrane. Six inches of free draining gas venting material will underlie the geomembrane. The underside of the gas venting layer will be 24-inches below the exposed ground surface. This 24-inch depth exceeds the average frost penetration of 20 inches and provides for additional protection during period of above average frost penetration. +1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The barrier protection layer material will be imported to the site from approved off-site sources. Each proposed source will be subject to prequalification testing and acceptance. The barrier protection layer material will be clean, inert, well graded granular material free from any organic materials, roots, stumps, chunks of earth or clay, shale or other soft, poor durability particles, construction and demolition debris, reprocessed or recycled soils, concrete asphalt or other foreign material and shall conform to the following gradation. Sieve Size Percent Passing Bv Weight I inch No. 40 No. 200 100 0-70 0-15 The minimum coefficient of permeability of the soil will be I x 10.3 em/see as measured in accordance with ASTM D2434 - Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head). A coarse grained, granular soil has been selected for the barrier protection layer to provide a stable, non-yielding surface suitable for potential secondary uses of the site such as outdoor storage. Fine grained soils containing substantial quantities of silt and/or clay would be prone to moisture retention, capillary action and ultimately, pumping or displacement under load. Shifting of the barrier protection layer under load could then result in damage or stresses imposed on the underlying geosynthetics. The barrier protection soil will be placed as a loose lift of 12 inches in thickness. The material will be placed by low ground pressure machines. Construction equipment will not be permitted to travel directly on the geocomposite drainage layer. Rubber tired vehicles will only be permitted to operate on a layer of soil at least 3 feet in thickness over the liner as a temporary access way. The lift of material will be compacted by making several passes with the low ground pressure spreading/placing equipment. The moisture content of the soil will be controlled to + 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I facilitate compaction, however, a minimum degree of compaction will not be specified for the lift. Prior to placement of the barrier protection layer, the exposed surface of the geomembrane will be inspected to ensure that it is clean, free of defects and flat. Placement of the barrier protection layer in the flat areas may proceed either upslope or downslope with care taken to ensure that displacement of the geomembrane does not occur. Placement of the barrier protection layer in the steeper slope areas will only be permitted to progress upslope (pushing up the side slopes) to prevent undo stress from being imposed on the geomembrane. Grade control for placement of the barrier protection layer will utilize non-intrusive means such as laser, stanchions, traffic cones, etc. to prevent damage to or penetration of the underlying geosynthetics. Testing of the barrier protection layer material during construction will be performed at a frequency of once per 1,000 cubic yards for gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and once per 2,500 cubic yards for permeability (ASTM D2434). In-place moisture/density measurements of the second lift will be performed at a frequency of nine tests per acre per lift utilizing nuclear methods (ASTM D30l7 and D2922, respectively). The finished surface of the barrier protection layer will be surveyed for as-built conditions. The in-place thickness of the barrier protection layer will be confirmed by hand excavating a test hole on a lOO-foot grid pattern. A board or straight edge will be used to reference grade and three measurements of the in-place depth will be made. The average of the three readings will be considered the depth of the material. The average thickness of the compacted barrier protection layer will be no less than 12 inches. + 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.10 Topsoil and Vegetation The topsoil layer will be the uppermost layer of soil in the capping system and will be suitable for establishing and growing surface vegetation. The topsoil layer will be 6 inches in thickness and will be placed over the entire area to be capped. For the purpose of this discussion, the term "topsoil" will refer to either a naturally occurring topsoil or a manufactured (processed) vegetative growth medium. If appropriate, the term "natural topsoil" will be used to differentiate between the two meanings. A review of existing site conditions suggests that there is no appreciable or salvageable quantities of topsoil on-site which would serve to satisfy the need for cap construction. Therefore, all topsoil requirements for the site must be satisfied by the import of topsoil from approved off-site sources. Natural topsoil will be defined as fertile, friable, natural topsoil of loamy character, without admixtures of subsoil and shall be uniform in quality. Natural topsoil will be free from debris and waste of any kind, clay, hard pan, rocks, pebbles larger than 2 inches in diameter, plants, sod, noxious weeds, roots, sticks, brush and other rubbish. Muck soils will not be considered natural topsoil. Natural topsoil will have an organic content of no less than 5 percent nor more than 20 percent as determined by loss on ignition of oven-dried samples tested in accordance with ASTM D2974. The pH of the topsoil will not be less than 5.5 and not more than 6.8. The natural topsoil will have a gradation which conforms to the following: Sieve Size Percent Passing Bv Weight 2 inch I inch 1/4 inch No. 200 100 85-100 65-100 20-80 . 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Manufactured or processed topsoil will be defined as a blend of natural soils and yard waste compost material in prescribed proportions to provide an equivalent vegetative growth medium. The manufactured topsoil will be a mixture of sand or silty sand and screened yard waste compost. The approximate mixture will be on the order of 65 to 75 percent sand or silty sand and 25 to 35 percent compost. For this project, the source of yard waste compost is proposed to be obtained from facilities permitted or registered by NYSDEC or other appropriate regulatory agency. The actual mixture of soil and compost will be proposed by the construction contractor. The contractor will retain the services of an experienced agronomist who will provide a written opinion of the proposed mixture, its suitability as an equivalent vegetative growth medium, its compatibility with the specified seed mixtures, any erosion control measures which differ from the specified requirements and are necessitated by the manufactured material and any soil amendments or fertilizers which may be required to provide a suitable material. The yard waste compost will be mature and stable, not phytotoxic (not toxic to plants) and will be free of any traces of municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, construction and demolition debris, animal offal or manure, bulking agents or any other objectionable or deleterious materials. The compost material will be free of particles larger than 2 inches and will be generally free of plastics. The topsoil layer will be placed as one lift 6 inches in depth over the exposed surface of the barrier protection layer (or general fill). The topsoil layer will be raked and cleaned and rolled with a roller weighing between 40 and 65 pounds per foot of width. During rolling, all depressions caused by settlement will be filled with topsoil and the surface shall be regraded and rolled until a smooth, even finished grade is achieved. . 1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The placement and spreading of topsoil will be coordinated with the planting and seeding operation to allow for planting and seeding within 7 days of placement. Soil amendments such as fertilizer, lime, etc., will be applied as required based upon test data. Testing of the topsoil material during construction will be performed at a frequency of once per 1,000 cubic yards for particle size (sieve and hydrometer analysis), pH and organic content. The proposed vegetation for the capped area of the site will be a mixture of turf grasses which will provide for rapid establishment to minimize erosion, as well as slower growing species to minimize long-term maintenance. The seed mixture will include: . Crown Vetch; . White Clover; . Palmer Perennial Ryegrass; . Little Bluestone; . Chewings Red Fescue; . Kentucky 3 I Tall Fescue; . Redtop; . or equivalent species. The seed mixture will be applied by hydroseeding onto the loosened surface of the topsoil layer. The hydroseeding operation will include the application of a hydromuIch and hydromuIch adhesive to secure and protect the seeding sufficiently to allow for the placement of the overlying erosion control fabric. '1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The closure construction specifications will require establishment of vegetative cover of 85% (Le., areal coverage) within two (2) years. The specifications will also require that contiguous unvegetated areas do not exceed one square foot in size. All areas of exposed soil beyond the cap limits which become exposed as a result of construction activities will be seeded with a 50/50 mix of annual rye grass and switch grass (or equivalent) at the rate of 100 pounds per acre. The in-place depth of the topsoil will be confirmed using the procedures for test pits discussed for the barrier protection layer soils. The finished surface of the topsoil layer will be surveyed for as-built conditions. 3.11 Wetlands As shown on the attached drawings the wetlands delineation survey shows that for the majority of the eastern perimeter the wetlands boundary is over 100 feet beyond the proposed limits of the geomembrane and over 50 feet from the proposed perimeter access road. At its closest point, in the southeast corner of the landfill, the wetlands are within approximately 20 feet of the proposed cap limits. As a result, disturbance of the wetlands will be limited to the southeast comer of the site. In order to offset the impact of this disturbance, mitigative measures are planned. The plan is to create an improved wetland habitat over that which exists through a combination of excavation, preservation of large diameter trees, and planting of wetland shrubs and grasses. As shown on the attached drawing, the area to be excavated includes the existing glass and metal debris piles. Excavation will be to an elevation of 4 to 6 feet throughout the area. This would create approximately 5,500 square feet of new wetland and enhance approximately 6,700 square feet of existing wetland. The soil generated would be disposed on-site by placing it under the landfill cap and the glass and metal would also be disposed on-site under the cap or removed for off-site disposal. +1468\F0817801.DOC(R06) 3-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en CD (') ... -. o ::s ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY A critical element in the design of a landfill capping system is the assessment of the lining system to remain stable and to not impose undue stresses in the components of the system. These stresses may be imparted through the sliding action of one surface against another. Typically, the focus of concern is addressed to the interface or contact plane between the soil components of the systems against the geosynthetic components of the system and also the interface between two contacting geosynthetics. The design requirements prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 360 place restrictions on the maximum slope angle permitted. In instances where the interface friction angle (resistance) is not sufficiently large to counteract the tendency of the lining materials to progress downslope (driving force) the difference in forces must be assumed by the tensile properties of the lining co~ponents. In instances where the resistive forces of friction exceed the driving forces, the forces acting across the interface are considered to be neutral and no tensile contribution is required of the geosynthetics. The typical landfill capping system is constructed in a succession of layers, each of a generally uniform and definable cross section. Each layer may be equated to a thin veneer separated from underlying and overlying layers or veneers by identifiable boundaries or interfaces. An examination of the forces acting at the critical interfaces is referred to as a Veneers Stability Analysis. For landfills, which project upwards as a mound above surrounding grades and impart unbalanced loads through the waste and/or underlying and adjacent soils, the issue of global or slope stability is an area of concern, as well as the effects of seismic loading conditions on stability. A slope stability analysis was performed for the closure of the Fishers Island Landfill. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the stability of the final proposed closure slopes for + I 468\F08I 8804.DOC(R02) 4-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the landfill. The analysis was performed by Tectonics Engineering Consultants, P.C. This section presents the findings of the analysis and recommendations for the design of the landfill closure slopes. The details of the stability analysis are provided in Appendix B. 4.1 Slope Stability Analysis Two geometric cross-sections designated as profile A-A' and C-C' were analyzed for overall slope stability. The location of these cross sections are provided on Figure 4-1 and the cross sections are provided as Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Slope stability analyses were performed by the Simplified Bishop Method utilizing the PCST ABL 5M computer program. Failure surfaces along the cross sections were generated using the "Circle" searching algorithm and "Surface" for both static and pseudo-static (seismic) conditions. Iterations using these subroutines yielded the critical failure surfaces for the subject slopes. The slopes were analyzed to evaluate the static slope stability, the effect of the design seismic effect on the gross stability of the subject slopes, and the surficial stability of the landfill cap material and underlying waste mass. Table 4-1 presents the results of the static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses. Plots and design criteria are provided in Appendix B. 4.2 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis The typical landfill capping system is constructed in a succession of layers, each of a generally uniform and definable cross section. Each layer may be equated to a thin veneer separated from underlying and overlying layers or veneers by identifiable boundaries or interfaces. An examination of the g-forces acting at the critical interfaces is referred to as a veneer stability analysis. +1468\F0818804.DOC(R02) 4-2 \ \ ~ 0 I l/') '<t ~ II w , Il:: ~ ::::l Z W t:l 0 [;: ~ -.J UZ <( oQ u -'t; \ \ (/) ~~ \ \ ::Etf) -tf) Xo 0", lEU ~~ 0 4:1 z w I , C) w ~~ I , -l / . f 'r f · f , . .~~. f f f f . .... f 0- f <( e i ~ . f . Z e 0 e '" !;( . -,'" -'0 G:>- U f O~ I . ~Z 9 .. , f O~ Z . . Zz I :5::J 0 '. ~8 t> . tf) ",,,, ~ W-' IO W !a~ (f) "-::J tf) (f) f .. (f) 0 e:::: u . , , , , , I , , , , , ' . , , , (j a: f .,; ~ ~ o .u o . () .:2 () .c :J .~ ., . -+- 0 ..... U C u.: CD ~ E -0 ::~ c: .S: i: o g'.... "'0 C "'c ..Y.:S ,2 !r...3'~ .- Ul.~ >co 08< 66/~/Z'-"''''-DMO.0~'-99'' '311J 99" '"'0 dQj " --. - ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FINAL CAI 30 1/ 30 I " ~ .............. / SUBGRAD ~ I " ,/ .......... / / / 7 -...... -.............. ~ 1/ EXISTING GRADE / "'-./ - I- """"'-. '"'" ./ 25 I 1/ - - - I--. ~ ~ 25 - -- "\..1 I- ........ ... APPROXI ATE TOP 1-. __............. X of WASTI " I::".. .......... '~ '-\. 20 "" 20 , ~ 1\\\ \\\ 15 \\ \. 15 \\ ~ \ \ " 10 10 0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 a> a> ;;;- "- N I " j '" I on <D .. PROFILE A-A' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=50' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' ~ <i: on <D .. HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=50' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' <i' i5 ~ Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates. P.C. FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PROFILE A-A FIGURE 4-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 Sl ~AI ~_ --- .......... /' FIN ~L CAP 30 '\ ./ ........ ...... /' ~ ./ ....- ............... .............. / / SW GRADE "- '" ./' """"'-- ....... ...... ./ / '\.7 ../ " ~ ~ / / EXI TING GRAD i=" 25 1\ '/ ~ --- " "iiiii.:: .... - / / 25 \ I L- -::: - " z.......... / ~APF ROXIMATE OP OF WASTE -- " " -1\ I " """"""- ~ / " I \ -- "" ......... ~ 7 - --- -L ~\ 20 iii \ \",' 20 \ ' \ j \ \\ , 7 \ \ J / \ 15 ./ \ \ 15 / \ \\ /' . ""'" " / --.......: ~ ----- 10 10 0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 0> 0> " '" " N I '" '" ,.' '" I '" <0 .. PROFILE C-C' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=50' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=5' w ~ 0: '" <0 .. HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=50' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' 0: i5 d@ Dvirka and Bartilucci o Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates. P.C. FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PROFILE C-C FIGURE 4-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4.1 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS Moist Unit Saturated Unit Friction Angle Slope Material Weight (pen Weight (pen (degrees) Cohesion (pen Landfill Cap Soils 105 115 32 0 Landfill Solid 65 75 20 200 Waste Materials Wetland Materials 65 75 20 200 +1468\F0818804.DOC(R02) 4-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The interface between the geomembrane and the barrier protection layer was considered to be the critical slip surface. For the analysis, water was assumed to be 3 inches above the geomembrane at the top of the slope and increase to the total depth of the cap at the base of the slope. The slope was assumed to be inclined at 33 percent. The veneer slope stability analysis yielded a factor of safety of 1.6 under static loading conditions and a factor of safety of 1.2 under seismic conditions. 4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations The slope stability analysis indicates that, based on the grading plan and cap design planned for the Fishers Island Landfill, adequate factors of safety were obtained for the static gross stability condition, for the pseudo-static (seismic) conditions and for potential surficial failures through the landfill cap materials. However, large equipment loads applied during construction may result in a localized failure of the slope, especially along the interface between the landfill cap soils and geomembrane. Therefore, adequate drainage should be designed into the landfill cap on the steeper slopes in order to prevent the development of a fully saturated condition within the landfill cap soil layer on these slopes. Based upon the results of the analysis and concerns for localized failure of the slope, in particular, on the steeper slopes, a geocomposite will be incorporated into the cap design between the geomembrane and the overlying barrier protection layer on the 33 percent slopes. This geocomposite will also extend approximately 10 feet onto the 4 percent slopes. This will provide for adequate drainage of the cap and eliminate potential for fully saturated conditions on the steep slopes. Further details are provided in Section 5.0 - Hydraulic Efficiency. +1468\FU818804.DOC(R02) 4-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 HYDRAULIC EFFICIENCY The hydraulic efficiency of the proposed capping system is a measure of the ability of the cap to inhibit the percolation of infiltrated precipitation into the waste mass and the generation of leachate. In order to assess the hydraulic efficiency, the proposed capping system was modeled using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. The HELP model, Version 3, September 1994, was utilized in this analysis. The HELP model is a quasi-two dimensional model of water movement across, into, through and out of landfills. The model accepts weather, soil and design data, and uses solution techniques that account for the effects of surface storage, snow melt, runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, vegetative growth, soil moisture storage, lateral subsurface drainage, unsaturated vertical drainage and leakage through geomembrane liners. The model can be used to evaluate the efficiency of bottom lined landfills, as well as landfill caps over lined and unlined landfills. In the case of the Fishers Island Landfill, which is an unlined landfill, the evaluation is limited to the efficiency of the proposed cap. In order to utilize the HELP model, certain variables must be selected or defined. Where appropriate, default values and data contained within the model may be utilized in lieu of developing site-specific data. For the Fishers Island Landfill, evapotranspiration and weather data for New Haven, Connecticut was utilized as being geographically representative of the landfill site. The evaporative zone depth was selected as 18 inches, which is representative of a humid area with surface vegetation. The maximum leaf area index was selected as 2.0, representing a fair stand of grass that is appropriate for a typical landfill cap which receives nominal maintenance. The start and end of the growing area was selected to coincide with the period of the middle of March through the end of October. In order to provide an accurate evaluation of the proposed capping system, a finite number of defects were assumed to exist in the completed geomembrane hydraulic barrier. The . 1468\A041480I.DOC(R04) 5-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIze and frequency of the defects is considered consistent with good construction quality assurance/ quality control (CQNCQC). For a good installation, the geomembrane defects are defined as one pinhole per acre and three installation defects per acre, again being consistent with good CQNCQC. The HELP guidance document suggests that an excellent installation quality (one defect per acre) is achieved only 10 percent of the time, as opposed to a good installation, which is routinely achieved 40 percent of the time. The geomembrane placement quality was also selected as "good," representing a good field installation with a well prepared, smooth soil surface and geomembrane wrinkle control to ensure good contact between the geomembrane and the underlying soil. The following discussion of the HELP model results relates to the proposed use of a 4 percent slope on the plateau portion of the landfill and 33 percent slope on the eastern side slopes adjacent to the wetlands, and also the proposed capping system and hydraulic efficiency. For this hydraulic efficiency evaluation, four separate runs of the HELP model were prepared to represent the following conditions: . 4 percent slope, no geocomposite drainage layer . 4 percent slope, with a geocomposite drainage layer . 33 percent slope with no geocomposite drainage layer . 33 percent slope with a geocomposite drainage layer The output from these four model runs is included as Appendix C. With the exception of the variables noted above, all other parameters remained the same for this analysis. The period of analysis was selected as five years to coincide with the climate data available from the model for the calendar years 1977 through 1981. For each of the four runs, the section "Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981" has been excerpted and presented as Tables 5-1 through 5-4. . 1468\A0414801.DOC(R04) 5-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present the results for a 4 percent slope without a geocomposite drainage layer and 33 percent without a geocomposite drainage layer, respectively. The hydraulic efficiency for each capping system is calculated as the percentage of annual precipitation which is prevented from entering the waste mass to generate leachate. The equation for hydraulic efficiency follows: P-L Hydraulic Efficiency = - x 100 P where: P = total inches of precipitation per year. L = percolationJIeakage through the hydraulic barrier (measured in inches of precipitation). The level of hydraulic efficiency for a single hydraulic barrier landfill cap was characterized by NYSDEC in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 360 - Solid Waste Management Facilities, dated April 1988. The NYSDEC found that the proposed capping system would provide an acceptable hydraulic efficiency of 94.40 percent in terms of inhibiting the vertical percolation of infiltrated precipitation through the cap and entering the underlying waste. The capping system analyzed by NYSDEC modeled 18 inches of low permeability soil (permeability less than Ix10-7 cm/sec) as the hydraulic barrier, 4 percent minimum cover slope, 6 inches of topsoil and 24 inches of barrier protection layer. The analyses completed does not take into account defects. The NYSDEC indicates that a synthetic geomembrane may be substituted for the low permeability soil liner. As previously discussed the capping system for Fishers Island utilizes a 12-inch instead of a 24-inch barrier protection layer. For the purpose of this report, the calculated efficiency of 94.40 percent, which NYSDEC considers acceptable, will be used as a reference to gauge the minimum efficiency of the proposed capping system for the Fishers Island Landfill. +1468\A0414801.DOC(R04) 5-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5-1 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN HELP MODEL 4% SLOPE, NO GEOCOMPOSlTE DRAINAGE LAYER A VERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 Inches Percent Precipitation 49.71 100.00 Runoff 13.02 26.20 Evapotranspiration 30.76 61.89 Lateral Drainage Collected from Layer 2 (Barrier Protection Layer) 2.38 4.78 PercolationlLeakage Through from Layer 3 (Geomembrane) 3.48 7.01 Average Head Across Top of Layer 3 (Geomembrane) 10.34 Hydraulic Efficiency = 93.00% +1468\A0414801.DOC(R04) 5-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5.2 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN HELP MODEL 33% SLOPE, NO GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE LAYER A VERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 Inches Percent Precipitation 49.71 100.00 Runoff 3.68 7.39 Evapotranspiration 27.87 56.08 Lateral Drainage Collected from Layer 2 (Barrier Protection Layer) 17.83 35.88 PercolationlLeakage Through from Layer 3 (Geomembrane) 0.25 0.50 Average Head Across Top of Layer 3 (Geomembrane) 0.55 Hydraulic Efficiency = 99.50% +1468\A0414801.DOC(R04) 5-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I For a 4-percent slope without a geocomposite drainage layer, the hydraulic efficiency is calculated to be 93.00 percent. For a 33-percent slope without a geocomposite drainage layer, the hydraulic efficiency is calculated to be 99.50 percent. The 4-percent slope without a geocomposite drainage layer will basically provide an overall system efficiency which meets the efficiency presented by NYSDEC (94.40 percent) in the DEIS. As described previously, the cap simulated in the DEIS did not account for any defects. The 4 percent slope without a geocomposite analysis does account for defects which is a more realistic approach. Therefore, the slight difference in efficiency (less than 1.4%), should be acceptable. As discussed in Section 4.0, the proposed capping system will incorporate the use of a geocomposite drainage layer above the geomembrane on the 33% slopes to facilitate lateral drainage and minimize the accumulation of head on the hydraulic barrier to provide for improved slope stability. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the results for a 4 percent slope with a geocomposite drainage layer and a 33 percent slope with a geocomposite drainage layer, respectively. The benefit of incorporating a geocomposite drainage layer into the system is reflected in the improvement of the hydraulic efficiency for the 4-percent slope example. In the 4-percent slope example with a geocomposite drainage layer, the calculated hydraulic efficiency has been increased to at least 99 percent, which exceeds the NYSDEC criteria of 94.40 percent. However, as discussed above, the 4-percent slope without a geocomposite meets the cap efficiency as presented by NYSDEC, and therefore, a geocomposite is not necessary on the 4-percent slopes. . 1468\A041480 I.DOC(R04) 5-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5-3 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN HELP MODEL 33% SLOPE WITH GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE LAYER A VERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 Inches Percent Precipitation 49.71 100.00 Runoff 3.68 7.41 Evapotranspiration 25.67 51.64 Lateral Drainage CoIIected from Layer 3 (Geocomposite) 20.09 40.42 PercolationlLeakage Through from Layer 4 (Geomembrane) 0.00004 0.00007 Average Head Across Top of Layer 4 (Geomembrane) 0.00 Hydraulic Efficiency = 99.99% .14681A04148DI.DOC(R04) 5-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5-4 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN HELP MODEL 4% SLOPE WITH GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE LAYER AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 Inches Percent Precipitati'On 49.71 100.00 Run'Off 3.01 6.05 Evap'Otranspirati'On 25.78 51.86 Lateral Drainage C'Ollected from Layer 3 (Ge'Oc'Omp'Osite) 20.73 41.70 Perc'Olati'On/Leakage Thr'Ough fr'Om Layer 4 (Geomembrane) 0.003 0.005 Average Head Across T'OP 'Of Layer 4 (Ge'Omembrane) 0.002 Hydraulic Efficiency = 99.99% . 1468\A0414801.DOqR04) 5-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 6.1 General The topography of the Fishers Island Landfill is, in general, gently sloping approximately 4 percent from west to east direction. The landfill site is, in general, approximately 25 feet above mean low tide elevation. At present, the site drainage consists of surface runoff in the form of sheet flow primarily into well established wetlands adjacent to the landfill. These wetlands bound the Fishers Island Landfill on three sides--east, south and west. The wetland areas are predominantly covered with heavy vegetation consistent with wetland species. Existing wetlands are presently providing a natural water quality system for the existing surface water. At present, some precipitation will not be in the form of surface runoff, but will infiltrate and percolate through the waste mass. With the construction of the proposed capping system, the opportunity for infiltration to occur will be mitigated by the cap. Therefore, management of increased storm water runoff after cap construction will require evaluation. It appears the best opportunity to manage storm water runoff from the completed landfill cap would be to utilize the existing wetland area, primarily east of the landfill, for quantity and quality control. 6.2 Design Parameters In order to assess if the wetland areas can accommodate the surface runoff with a cap in place, a hydraulic analysis of the Fishers Island Landfill was conducted. This hydraulic analysis generates flow per drainage area which would discharge into the existing wetlands. This time of concentration path is in the form of sheet flow or swale conveyance. In accordance with the Part 360 requirements, the storm water management system must be sufficient to accommodate a 25-year storm event with a 24-hour duration. For the Fishers' Island area, this storm event is equivalent to 6 inches of rainfall in a coastal setting. + 1468\A0414802.DOC(R07) 6-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The following hydraulic analysis utilizes the Soil Conservation Service watershed models TR-55 and TR-20 in the computer program, HydroCad. Site design parameters consist of a (RCA) number of 56, which is equivalent to a surface having brush, weeds and a fair stand of grass. The vegetative growth medium was determined by the U.S. Geological Survey soil classification to be Group B. A 25-year storm event with a 24-hour duration yielding 6 inches of rainfall is routed through the landfill watershed to provide a water surface elevation increase in the existing wetlands and proposed flow rates per drainage area. 6.3 Storm Water Disposal A review of the proposed final grading plan indicates that there are four subareas with definable flow paths. These areas are identified as areas FIL-I through FIL-4 on Drawing 6. The analysis of the storm water discharge from each of these areas was performed using HydroCad 4.0. A copy of this analysis is provided in Appendix D. The northern portion of the drainage area, FIL-I, consists of J.6l:t acres. The design flow path for this drainage area travels northerly along the perimeter of the cap landfill which terminates at the eastern wetlands. The runoff generated from this area was calculated to yield 3.6 cfs. The drainage areas FIL-2 and f'IL.-3 consist of 0.95 and 0.88 acres respectively, which will produce 2.3 and 2.1 cfs in flow. These areas are located on the eastern portion of the landfill. Storm water runoff from these drainage areas will be in the form of sheet flow to the wetlands. The southern half of the landfill, FIL-4 having a drainage area of 1.12:t acres, is tributary to the eastern wetlands. The time of concentration path for this contributing storm water discharge is by a constructed berm on the top of the existing embankment, since the proposed capping system will terminate at the topllandfill plateau because the waste is not present on the slopes in this drainage area. A flow of 3.1 cfs is generated as runoff over this surface area. . 1468\A0414802.DOC(R07) 6-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Under the design storm event, the combination of all three drainage areas will generate 11.1 cfs in surface runoff. As discussed previously, the opportunity for on-site disposal exists due to the large area of existing well established wetlands located east of the proposed capping system. As part of this analysis, this wetland area, labeled "existing wetland" in the HydroCad model, will be the design point to which all tributary drainage area will flow. In order to provide on/adjacent site disposal capacity, the analysis will have to demonstrate that the water level in the existing wetlands will not rise significantly and that the velocity of surface water runoff will not adversely impact the wetlands. Also, during construction of the proposed capping system, adequate sediment control measures, as described below, will be provided to protect the wetlands. As determined by the HydroCad model, under a design storm event, the rise in the water level of the eastern wetland is insignificant due to the large area of the receiving wetland. Therefore, the eastern wetland area should provide sufficient assimilative capacity to allow for all storm water to be disposed adjacent to the site. In addition, there is an outlet to the east of the wetlands that drains to the ocean. 6.4 Erosion Control Practices Erosion and sedimentation from areas undergoing cap construction must be properly controlled to ensure that the disturbed areas will not adversely affect the surrounding wetlands. The erosion potential will be evaluated by specific conditions, such as soils, drainage, vegetative cover, and proposed clearing and grading, so that the most effective erosion and sediment controls can be implemented. The implementation of these erosion and sediment controls will occur during certain phases of construction and have been organized into three functional categories: temporary practices, permanent practices and vegetative practices. Under each category, a list of specific devices which will be incorporated into the final design for capping of . 1468IA0414802.DOC(R07) 6-3 ------------------- FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SOURCE: NORTH AMERICAN GREEN FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL SUFFOLK COUNlY, NEW YORK ~ Ovirka and Bartilucci RAINFALL INTENSITY "R" FACTORS Consulting Engineers o A ~ivision of Williom F. Cosulich Associates. P.C. FIGURE 6-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en CD n r+ -. o ::J ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING In addition to the results of the August 1999 sampling event presented in Section 2.4, the groundwater quality in the area of the Fishers Island Landfill has been documented in the following: . Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for The Picket Landfill, Fishers Island, New York, prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, May 1994. . Second round of groundwater sampling results, letter to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, from Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, dated October 20, 1995. . Draft Closure Investigation Report for the Picket Landfill, Fishers Island, New York, prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, March 1997. The above referenced documents are on file with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Region 1. As discussed in Section 2.4, groundwater samples were collected from seven groundwater monitoring wells (W-I through W-6 and MW-13) in August 1993. Each of the samples were analyzed for baseline parameters with the exception of the groundwater sample collected from W-5 which was analyzed for hexavalent chromium, color and volatile organic compounds due to insufficient water volume. No other analysis was performed due to insufficient water volume. Hexavalent chromium and total chromium are analyzed by two different analytical method and therefore require different sample containers. There was not sufficient water volume to analyze for chromium or the remaining metals. Based on the results of the analysis, three volatile organic compounds were detected in the downgradient wells; however, the concentrations of these compounds did not exceed the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines. Exceedances of the NYSDEC standards/guidelines were noted only for color, turbidity, sodium, total dissolved solids, iron and manganese. .1468\F083180I.DOC(R04) 7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A second round of groundwater samples was collected in May 1995. Groundwater samples were collected from six of the monitoring wells (W-l through W-4, W-6 and MW-13) and analyzed for baseline parameters. The results of the second round of sampling indicated similar results to the previous round with the exception of a slightly elevated level of ethylbenzene (19 ug/l) in MW-13. One private well used for irrigation purposes was located downgradient of the landfill. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services collected a sample from this well. The results of the analysis did not indicate the presence of any contaminants above NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines. As discussed in Section 2.4, in response to comments received from NYSDEC on the draft Closure Plan, a round of groundwater sampling was performed in August 1999. Groundwater samples were collected from wells MW-2, MW-4, MW-6 and MW-13. In accordance with NYSDEC's requirements, the samples collected from wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-6 were analyzed for Baseline Parameters, and the sample collected from MW-13 was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Due to the high turbidity values (>50 NTUs) detected during purging of wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-6, samples from these three wells were analyzed for total and dissolved metals. The results of the analyses of the samples collected in August 1999 are presented in Appendix E and the data validation report is presented in Appendix F. The volatile organic compounds chloroethane at 7 ugll and 1,1 - dichloroethane at 6 ugll were detected in MW-2 slightly above the Class GA standard of 5 ugll (which applies to both compounds). In MW-6, chlorobenzene was detected at 7 ug/l which slightly exceeds the Class GA standard of 5 ugll. Chloroethane at 13 ugll, benzene at 2 ugll, chlorobenzene at 10 ugll, ethylbenzene at 7 ugll and 1, 4 - dichlorobenzene at 4 ugll were detected in MW-13 slightly above the Class GA groundwater standards of 5 ug/l, 1 ugll, 5 ugll, 5 ugll and 3 ugll, respectively. . 1468\F083180 l.DOQR04) 7-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Similar to the results of previous sampling discussed above, the inorganic parameters manganese and sodium were detected above the Class GA standards in the filtered groundwater sample collected from MW-6 during the August 1999 sampling event. Manganese and sodium were also detected above Class GA standards in the filtered sample from MW-2. In addition, magnesium was detected above the Class GA standard in the filtered sample collected from MW-6. The results of the sampling indicate that there appears to be a mmor impacts to groundwater in the wells downgradient of the landfill. Many of the exceedances of the inorganic parameters detected during the initial rounds of groundwater sampling were attributed to background levels and potential influences from the tidal wetlands adjacent to the landfill. The existing wells were constructed in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 and were determined to be an appropriate monitoring network that documents both upgradient and downgradient groundwater quality relative to the landfill site. The proposed monitoring program consists of sampling one upgradient monitoring well (MW-4) and three downgradient wells (MW-2, MW-6 and MW-13). These wells will be sampled semiannually and groundwater samples will be analyzed for routine parameters once a year and baseline parameters once a year, with the exception of the samples collected from MW -13 which will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds only. In the event that the proposed sampling program documents an increased contravention of the groundwater standards/guidelines, the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District will determine whether the contravention is material or nonmaterial and present its findings to the NYSDEC. Subsequent modification of the groundwater monitoring program, if required, will be discussed with the NYSDEC. .1468\F0831801.DOqR04) 7-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE A cost estimate for the construction of the Fishers Island Landfill capping system is presented in Table 8-1. The estimate has been prepared based upon the closure plan described in this document. The unit costs used to develop this estimate are representative of comparable work performed and material supplied in the Long Island and Eastern Connecticut areas. The total cost for the construction of the landfill capping system and appurtenances as presented is estimated to be approximately $1.4 million. .146S\FOS31S02.DOqR03) 8-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8-1 FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Engineer's Estimate Item Estimated No. Description Quantities Unit Unit Price Total Price 1. Pre-Mobilization (not to exceed four percent (4%) of the Total Amount of Estimate) LS LS LS $43,500.00 2. Mobilization, Maintain and Demobilize (not to exceed two percent (2%) of the Total Amount of Estimate) LS LS LS $21,800.00 3. Clearing and Grubbing 5 acre $2,800.00 $14,000.00 4. Contour Grading Material 600 cu. yd. $6.00 $3,600.00 5. Unclassified Excavation and 6,000 cu. yd. $6.00 $36,000.00 Relandfilling 6. Geotextile - Type 1 190,000 sq. ft. $0.25 $47,500.00 7. Gas Venting Layer (6") 4,000 cu. yd. $18.00 $72,000.00 8. 60-Mil Textured HOPE Geomembrane 190,000 sq. ft. $0.75 $142,500.00 9. Landfill Gas Vents 7 each $3,300.00 $23,100.00 10. Geocomposite 30,400 sq. ft. $0.65 $19,760.00 11. Barrier Protection Layer (12") 7,500 cu. yd. $12.00 $90,000.00 12. Topsoil Layer (6") 4,000 cu. yd. $21.00 $84,000.00 13. Erosion Control Blanket: crown and 21,120 sq. yd. $1.50 $31,680.00 sideslopes 14. Erosion Control Fabric 970 sq. yd. $5.00 $4,850.00 15. Silt Fence 1,650 If $1.22 $2,010.00 16. Seeding (hydro) 30,230 sq. yd. $0.90 $27,200.00 17. Culverts 0 --- $0 $0.00 18. Rip-Rap and Stone Fill 200 cu. yd. $81.00 $16,200.00 19. Fencing and Gating 800 If $18.75 $15,000.00 20. Perimeter Road 2,400 If $19.63 $47,112.00 + 1468\fU831802.doc(R03) 8-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8.1 (continued) FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Engineer's Estimate Item Estimated No. Description Quantities Unit Unit Price Total Price 21. Abandon Existing Groundwater 4 each $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Monitoring Wells 22. 4" Diameter Slope Drains and Toe Drains 1,100 If $4.00 $4,400.00 23. Metal Pile 141 cu. yd. $15.00 $2,115.00 24. Glass Pile 17 cu. yd. $15.00 $255.00 25. Wetlands CreationlImprovement LS LS LS $30,000.00 26. Shipping (Ferry Cost and Truck Time) LS LS LS $361,800.00 27. Expenses Related to Island Construction $172,900.00 15% 28. Contingency 10% $115,200.00 Total Amount of Estimate $1,440,500.00 . 14681f1l831802.DOC(R03) 8-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A schedule for the construction of the Fishers Island Landfill capping system is presented as Figure 9-1. The schedule addresses the physical construction effort for the project and would follow the preparation of plans and specifications, reviews, competitive bidding, award of bid and execution of contracts. As shown on the attached Construction Schedule, a significant impact on the overall construction schedule is trying to accomplish closure of the landfill prior to the summer season. Transportation to the island utilizing the ferry service is extremely limited (one to two trucks per day with advance reservations) during the months of May through October. During the remaining late fall, winter and early spring months, charter ferry service is available to allow for transport of up to 18 trucks per day. Based on the transportation restrictions, delivery of the necessary materials and supplies to the Island will be difficult. In addition, there is little space available on-site to stock pile material, therefore, all material must be delivered just prior to the time it is being placed/utilized on-site. In order to complete the closure work in 2001, work must begin in September 2000. The schedule assumes that materials may need to be delivered in the spring and stockpiled on-site until they are utilized in the fall. It should be noted that, even if materials and equipment can be delivered to Fishers Island by barge, it is the District's and the community's preference that closure construction not take place in the peak summer season. (The summer population increases from the permanent population of about 350 to 3,500.) +1468/P1103804.DOC(R05) 9-1 I I . I .\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I II . FISHERS ISLAND GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISTRICT FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL - FINAL CLOSURE PLAN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 2000 2001 SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG I I I PREMOBILlZATION .... ... .. .................... ........... MOBILIZATION ..-...., .. .. ............ .. ..... ..... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..~ EROSION CONTROL .--.... CONTOUR GRADING MATERIAL ..-. LANDFILL GAS VENTS .... ...... .......................... ... ... ..... ..... ..... 'd. GEOTEXTILE . ......... ............ .. .. .. ............. ..... .. .... .. .. ..... GAS VENTING LAYER ..... .... .... ...... ... ..... .... DEMOBILIZATION . ... .. ....... ......................... ........ ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ... ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..~ REMOBILlZATION . ...... ......-.........._-............-...-...---.. .... ..... ... .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ...', GEOMEMBRANE . ................ .............. ...... ....- ..... .... .... ..... .... .. GEOCOMPOSITE . ........ .......... ........................ ..... ..... ..... .-... .. ..... ..... .... .... .. .. ... .. ...... .... .. BARRIER PROTECTION.LAYER.... .. .............. ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... ..... .. .... ..... ... .. TOPSOIL . ',-.p .. ... ... .... ... ..... ... .. ... ..... .. .. ..... .... .,.. ... ..... ... ..... ... ..... ... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .... ..... ...... ..... .. HYDROSEEDING . .. ........ ..... .. ... ... .... .... .-.. ... .. .... ... EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS .-... .. ... ... ..... ..... .. ..... ...... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,... RESTORATION OF WETLANDS .-... .. ... ......... ... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ...... ..... .. .. ..... ...... ...... FIGURE 9-1 d[bOVirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS A DIVISION OF WUIAM F. COSULlCH ASSOCIATES, PoCo Rl..M1SHl468(8.t:l~8) I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I :J> 'C 'C CD :J Q. -. >< :J> I I I J I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A TEST PIT PROGRAM REPORT . 146SIFOJ10S04DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL TEST PIT PROGRAM FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK Prepared For FISHERS ISLAND GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISTRICT By DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS WOODBURY, NEW YORK JUNE 1997 tI468Ia0528705.doc(ROl) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL TEST PIT PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. I-I 2.0 TEST PIT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................ 2-1 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION AND DELINEATION OF WASTE..................... 3-1 3.1 Upland Landfill Area............................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Spread and Cover Waste Fill Area.......................................................... 3-2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 4-1 List of Appendices Test Pit Logs and Test Pit Profiles ............................................................................... A Daily Activity Reports.... ............... ........ .............. ..... .......... ..... ..... ..... ... .......... .... ...........B Location Sketches........................ ........ ..... ........ ...... ..... ....................... ... ......... ...............C Air Monitoring Fonn........... ..... ........ ................ ........ ....................... ........ ......... ...... ...... D Daily Equipment Calibration Log .................................................................................E FP & M Site Plan (Figure 1.1.2) ................................................................................... F List of Figures Test Pit Location and Limits of Waste Map................. (In Pocket Following Section 2) List of Tables Summary Description of Test Pits.............................................................................. 2-3 .1468\aOS2870S.doc(ROI) I I . I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Fishers Island Landfill Test Pit Program Fishers Island, New York Prepared for: Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District JUNE 1997 I I I I I I I I I . I I I . I I I I I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Between May 5 and 9, 1997, 25 test pits were excavated within the Fishers Island Landfill property boundary. Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B) provided oversight during excavation of the test pits. The objective of the test pits was to gain subsurface information for delineation of the horizontal and vertical extent, and characterization of buried waste in the main upland landfill area, and the spread and cover waste fill area to the north. Delineation of the waste will be utilized by the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District (District) for development of a closure plan for the landfill, including the feasibility of consolidation of waste as part of landfill closure and evaluation of closure alternatives (capping and reclamation). Fanning, Phillips and Molnar (FP&M) prepared a draft Closure Investigation Report for the Fishers Island Landfill (also known as the Pickett Landfill) for the District in March 1997. D&B utilized FP&M's site plan (Figure 1.1.2) from this report as the basis for the test pit program. . 1468\aOS28706.doc(ROl) I-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I 1 I I 2.0 TEST PIT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A total of 25 test pits were excavated (TP-I through TP-25) based primarily on a 100 by lOO-foot grid which was surveyed by Mr. Richard Strauss of Chandler, Palmer & King prior to the test pit program (see Figure I). Test Pits TP-I through TP-12 and TP-14 through TP-19 were constructed adjacent to staked grid locations, however, TP-13 and TP-20 through TP-25 were constructed primarily to the north of the general grid area. These latter points were surveyed by Chandler, Palmer & King subsequent to the completion of the test pit program and are located on Figure 1. The test pits were constructed by Hewitt, Inc. (Mr. Carl Hewitt) subcontracted by the District. All test pits were constructed with an Insley Model H-lOOO-C track mounted backhoe with a bucket reach of slightly less than 20 vertical feet. The test pits ranged from 7 to 18 feet in depth and from 12 to 60 feet in length, and typically were a backhoe bucket width wide (approximately 3-4 feet). The test pits were excavated to at least seven feet below grade to native material or groundwater, whichever was encountered first. Depth in several of the test pits was limited due to boulders. During the excavations, the clean surface soil was placed separately from the waste material to the best extent possible and replaced during backfilling in the reverse order. However, the cover material was very thin (less than 0.5 feet thick) in some of the test pits and additional cover material was taken from the area surrounding these test pits. In addition, a payloader was used to place some of the on-site stockpiled soil to ensure that no waste was exposed at the surface of each of the test pits after backfilling. During each test pit excavation, logging was conducted to document the waste and geologic characteristics of each test pit (see Test Pit Logs in Appendix A), and included a sketch of a cross section with a description of the test pit contents and dimensions (see Test Pit Profiles also in Appendix A after each Test Pit Log). A description of the work performed daily was maintained on Daily Activity Reports which are contained in Appendix B. In addition, photographs were taken to record the contents of the test pits and excavated soil and waste after each excavation. The test pits excavated outside of the initial grid system (staked locations) were .1468\a0528706.doc(R01) 2-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sketched on Location Sketches (see Appendix C) and subsequently surveyed by Chandler, Palmer & King and incorporated on the site plan (Figure I). Table 1 provides a summary description of each test pit, including dimensions, contents and depth of groundwater (if encountered). Air monitoring was performed during the test pit excavations with a portable Gastech GT402 combustible gas meter which measures the percent of methane.gas in relation to its lower explosive level (% LEL). The lower explosive level of methane is 5% by volume in air. Total organic vapors were monitored with a photoionization detector (PID). Readings were measured from the open test pits and above the test pits in the breathing zone. No total organic vapor or % LEL readings above zero from the test pits or excavated material were observed with the exception of test pits TP-2 and TP-3. Total organic vapor readings of 2.8 parts per million (ppm) and 4.8 ppm were measured directly above the waste generated from TP-2 and TP-3, respectively. It should be noted that no odors or substances were observed in the material removed from these test pits that would indicated the presence of hazardous waste. The only % LEL reading measured during excavation of the test pits was a reading of 4% from directly over the waste in TP-2. No readings were measured in the breathing zone (total organic vapors or % LEL) during excavation of the test pits. Measurements are documented on the Air Monitoring Form contained in Appendix D. The PID and combustible gas meter were calibrated daily, and calibration times and results are documented on the Daily Equipment Calibration Log included in Appendix E. tl468\aOS28706.do<:(ROl) 2-2 ------------------- Table I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL TEST PIT PROGRAM SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TEST PITS Depth of Dimensions Main Body of Description of Waste in Test Pit (with Depth and Depth to (feet) Length Waste (feet Type of Waste in Approximate Percentages) Groundwater (feet Test Pit by Depth below grade, Bagged Free Free Free below grade, Number bv Width if present) Soil Waste* Glass Metal Paper Other if present) TP-l 27' x 9' x 4' 2-5 75 5 5 15 T NE TP-2 28' x 10' x 5' 3-5.5 30 45 10 10 5 NE TB-3 20' x 14' x 4' 4 - 10 30 50 10 5 5 14 TP-4 25' x 7' x 4' 0.5 - 2 95 5 T T T NE 5-6 10 90 T T T TP-5 20' x 18' x 4' 1 - 5 60 40 T T T 18 5 - 18 20 80 T T T TP-6 22' x 12' x 4' 0.5 - 2 70 30 T T T NE TP-7 30' x 11' x 4' 0.5 - 1.5 20 75 5 T T NE 1.5 - 6 70 T T T T 30 (Tree mat'll TP-8 22' x 15' x4' 0.5 - 11 50 30 10 5 5 NE TP-9 22' x 10' x 6' 0.5 - 4 70 30 T T T NE TP-IO 18' x 17' x4' 0.5 - 10 10 80 5 T 5 15.5 TP-Il 20' x 10' x 5' None 100 NE TP-12 25' x 9' x 4' None 100 NE TP-13 25' x 9' x 4' 2 100 T NE TP-14 24' x 15' x 4' 0-2 90 10 (C&D) 15 2 - 10 50 45 <5 <5 T . 1468\s0529701 ,tloc(ROI) 2-3 ------------------- Table 1 (continued) I<'ISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL TEST PIT PROGRAM SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TEST PITS Depth of Dimensions Main Body of Description of Waste in Test Pit (with Depth and (feet) Length Waste (feet Type of Waste in Approximate Percentages) Test Pit by Depth below grade, Bagged Free Free Free Number bv Width if Dresent) Soil ~* Glass Metal PaDer Other TP-15 26' x 15' x 4' 0.5 - 3 SO IS <5 <5 <5 3-7 20 SO T T T TP-16 15' x 15' x 4' 1- 10 15 75 5 <5 T TP-17 5S' x 7' x 6' None 100 TP-IS 30' x 13' x 4' 0.5 - 6 60 30 <5 <5 <5 TP-19 22' x 15' x 4' 3.5 - 5 S5 10 <5 <5 T TP-20 26' x ) I' x 4' 0.5 - 3 70 25 <5 <5 <5 3-7 SO 10 5 5 T TP-21 IS' x 7' x 4' 0.5 - 2 90 T T 10 T 2-7 75 T 5 20 T TP-22 20' x 13' x 4' 0.5 - 6 70 T T T T 30 (C&D) TP-23 IS' x 12' x 4' None 100 TP-24 21' x 9' x 4' 2 - S.5 70 15 JO 5 T TP-25 12' x 7' x 4' 4-7 SO 5 5 T T 10 (cobbles) Notes: * Plastic bags containing household wastes. T - Trace C&D - Construction and demolition debris. .146~\s05297()l.doc(ROI) 2-4 Depth to Groundwater (feet below grade, if Dresent) NE NE NE NE 14 10.5 7 NE NE S.5 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION AND DELINEATION OF WASTE The waste material in the main upland landfill area was described in FP&M's March 1997 report as solid waste deposited primarily in trenches. These reported trenches are depicted on FP&M's site plan (Figure 1.1.2) which is contained in Appendix F. The upland landfill area contains the majority of landfilled waste at the Fishers Island Landfill. FP&M reported that the landfilled waste in the spread and cover area exists north of the main landfill area and east within the wetlands area, and occurs to a depth of two to three feet below grade. 3.1 Upland Landfill Area On FP&M's site plan, two generally north-south trending trenches and three generally east-west trending trenches are indicated. Based on an interview with Mr. Richard Grebe, who was the primary operator at the landfill for approximately 15 years, a somewhat different layout of the trenches was indicated. Mr. Grebe indicated that two additional trenches trending generally north-south exist beyond the two shown on Figure 1.1.2 and two generally east-west trending trenches exist. According to Mr. Grebe, the two north-south trenches on Figure 1.1.2 were the first two constructed and these were the deepest trenches (down to groundwater). The layout of the trenches according to Mr. Grebe is represented on Figure 1. Mr. Grebe also indicated that dredged sediment from a pond was also disposed at the landfill and that the material underlying the waste and dredge material consists of a hard pan clayey soil. The dredge material may account for the reworked nature of the soil underlying the water. The following observations are based on the inspection of material excavated from the test pits in the interior portion of the upland landfill area: I. Waste material, where encountered, consisted primarily of household waste contained in plastic bags. 2. The percentages of observable, potentially recyclable materials contained in the waste (exclusive of the bagged contents), including glass, metal and paper, was typically .1468\a0528706.doc(R04) 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I low. No attempt was made to determine the contents/potentially recyclable materials in the plastic bags. 3. In general, the test pits constructed in the upland landfill area contained variable percentages of bagged waste ranging from 0.5 to II feet below grade. However, waste was identified in one interior test pit (TP-5) down to groundwater at a depth of 18 feet below grade. Test pit TP-5 may be the only test pit constructed which actually coincides with the two reported deep trenches, since the locations of these trenches are approximate. The waste in the two deepest original trenches may exist to a total depth of approximately 18 feet below grade. 4. Waste was identified throughout the upland area beyond the reported trenched locations (except the northwestern corner) which indicates a larger area of waste than previously indicated. 5. The main body of concentrated waste mass comprises an average thickness of approximately 6 to 7 feet with an average soil cover thickness of about I to 2 feet (calculated where waste was encountered). Lower percentages of soil are present where bagged waste was found which supports the trench method of landfilling where less daily cover was likely used. The material underlying the main body of waste typically consisted of a reworked green-gray clayey silt. 6. Onthe north and northeastern slopes of the upland landfill area, the waste grades into the adjacent wetlands. The test pits in this area contained greater amounts of waste and higher percentages of bagged waste which again supports the trench method of landfilling in this area. 7. The limits of test pits were in some cases defined by a compact dark green gray clayey silt, however, boulders were encountered in many of the test pits (typically at 8 feet below ground surface and below). 3.2 Spread and Cover Waste Fill Area The material in the spread and cover waste area was reported by FP&M to be solid waste deposited to a depth of two to three feet below grade and comprises the oldestlandfilled material. Four test pits were constructed outside of the upland landfill area most of which coincide with the spread and cover area outlined on the site plan. Inspection of material excavated from these four test pits revealed the following: .1468\a0528706.doc(R04) 3-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. The lower lying land to the north of the upland landfill area was almost devoid of waste (only a few plastic bags were encountered in one of the two test pits constructed in this area). 2. The lower lying land to the north-northeast of the upland landfill area contained higher percentages of metal scraps compared to bagged waste, and the percentages of observable, potentially recyclable materials, including glass and paper, were typically very low. The limits Of waste as depicted on Figure I are primarily based on sketches provided by Mr. Grebe and supported by observations resulting from the test pits. Only in one instance were the limits of waste .defined solely by a test pit (TP-7). Mr. Grebe indicated that the limits of waste generally follow close with the tree line in the wetlands to the east and northeast of the upland landfill area, and where the land slopes up to the road on the north side of the upland area (as shown on Figure I). Mr. Grebe also indicated, that as a general rule, waste was not deposited down onto the slopes on the south and west side of the upland area (Figure I). Mr. Grebe also indicated that an area to the east of test pits TP-20 and TP-21 was used to dispose of wrecked cars. . I 468\a0528706.doc(R04) 3-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based upon the results of the test pit program: 1. The waste is concentrated in trenches and most likely exists throughout the upland area, and typically consists of household waste contained in plastic bags. The waste mass comprises approximately 5.5 acres in the upland landfill area. 2. Low percentages of soil (approximately 10-50%) are found in the thick layers of waste mass in the upland landfill area which most likely is a result of the trenching type oflandfilling practice where little daily cover soil was probably used. 3. Based on the test pits constructed, the general thickness of waste mass in the upland area is approximately 6 to 7 feet with a cover thickness of about I to 2 feet. The average depth of waste is approximately 8 feet below grade. In the area of the trenches, the thickness of waste, in general, approaches 11 feet, with a maximum thickness of 17 feet identified at one test pit location. 4. The thickness of waste in the spread and cover area north of the upland landfill area is greater (up to 8 feet) than previously reported (2 to 3 feet) and it appears that this area extends further north than reported. However, consolidation of waste in the spread and cover area onto the main, upland landfill area may still be feasible. 5. Based on the observations made as a result of the test pit program, the volume of waste mixed with soil (based on a general thickness of 6-7 feet) is approximately 60,000 cubic yards. Based on an average percentage of soil of 50% mixed with the waste, the volume of waste material is about 30,000 cubic yards. The amount of waste could be greater if, in general, waste is buried to a depth of 18 feet in the reported deep trenches. . I 468\a0528706.doc(R04) 4-1 I I d~ ~~gka o Bartilucci I CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. , , PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCATioN Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York I;2(CA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT/OPERA T~ CAr \ ~w,t\- iJ'\,I~ ~_:OOO-G ~c..i(Ml>-v'f\. ~"Ul..vCl.hv - INSPECTOR/OFFICE S!;~'JlFrNISH DATE D.ObradovichID&B S ~'l7 1"- 2"" ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) ~bh..\ klJ1... J rJ q , b'1 &ocJ. REMARKS J No analvtical samoles collected. pro EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IAooroximate Percentaoesl (feet) (ppm) ("10 LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAl. PAPER OTHER , 0 0 0 I~" 0rt~,,,- ....i I - f1.4. ''J.......) J 1 - 2 i~" --sh.. " - 3 5 ~. I> >",1 - v'" 1, ~) 7') IrQ.U2. 4 1- 5 - /00........ .,. Bu..lk 6 0 0 - 7 - I- S 'j 100 C;.. I 9 Or 'IT - END rrr 10 - 11 , - 1- 12 13 \- 14 - I 15 \-1 ..h . 1468\GO~::970~_DOC I ~ DVIRKA I ~: :~~T1LUCCI I I Project r;{l\.2.(( J)la"-~ Sample(s) Interval(s) I I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT PROFILE L Ct,,-~-h' \ l t{j\ Project Number llf "1-& Tf'-I Test Pit Number tIr..l ~Q UU'-\- tc c ~;, s-kk. , - ..,. -- '"./ ~JW 5f: \ 2-r \- " " /l>1: . , 0' d1Go"'""ic.. ~ I ""ie ( ~r: -" I" Gr. ..... 01,- -t-.,...... ~ i- t": 'i_ ",,- , >. D f" J ... l \'*~ ofO. (".fAT I 7' -+- -~ ~~r'\G\. ~o"tV'O c;.l.-lJe' j J ---- r f';~S-'c. ~ 'NfA.~--: ~"'':-e:\') ~."')~ S n; \ , ( r~o~) , I ('.,- I '- \ , : (,d\ 01 , ; , ,. , i r I . , o~ I , / ...-/ 15," -J-..... >",...d '\-$:;';" f ( , , ' ", tj"~ ,~-::.,.....'-=-'..) __~.., .J, _ __-- b I e "-l - ~ '" ...( - r.."' (' '" ~~ol / ~e>!~~ ~. \- \~,.....,: ' //-' ... I I. " .""c:. ~',If:1 (. ~'1J ,/ . i ,J_ , i \ <;\. ''''0 ,~.,- . , ~ .:>rAi. ..:,,,... ,i.e, .:. Remarks -::>I'~g5PM' dlb Dvirka - and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. .:t PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCATION Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York ~ EXCAVATORlEQUIP",.ENTIJP~RATOR . 1^)lo H.IOOO-C eO\lI I INSPECTOR/OFFICE STARTIFINISH DATE D.ObradovichID&B S/'5/4" ). OJ _ Z. .. 5 ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF {:; (FT. ABOVE MSL) \Q~\ 'J,~\-l - I 0' ~a ';1#; s I v""f' J (.1M 2 - \tl' 1.'1 J REMARKS "io analvtical samoles collected. . PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IAnnroximate Percentaaesl (feet) (ppm) ("IoLEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER , 0 ;:; I 0 I 100 - 1 - 0 100 2 0 - 3 ,.. r.l..;t!c.. I- I 4 ,1.5 ... 50 10 '-IS" le S t;IU \ y I , 1- ~ I 5 I 1- 6 I- I 7 I I - 7- a I DO 1- 8 ,- , , 9 ,- I 10 rt"S"I err - !?NP Or I 11 I- I 12 I- I 13 I \= 14 I 15 b."i ., = . - I I I I . - I I I I I .1468\G04:nO:!.DOC cfu OVlRKA , AND O. BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~;sk.e(" Js\a~ LCl.,,-d+,'\\ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number II.f(.i-6 tJA Test Pit Number TP.2... ~ j ClCMJ -h> 1)-" }-k~ - i I I I I I I I I I I I Nw 101 o ) ~ \ .,-\ . V ;2.&' \)~ b('. SE" ~ Remarks ~1 -<.v'vi<. s; 1+ ""..J. Su..... f- '" ,"~ .... i .;. - (. , r1uIc...\ TPP~.PM" Gre'1-vvl,;,.k " l-t , c,l.d.r ""I..~'\) ,S"",,","':'--"" s;a.~ '\J~Jl..i ......"'\it G ~~. I I d~ ~~~:CCi I l.8) CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. 3 I PROJECT NAME/NO. I' Fishers Island Landfi111D&B No. 1468-B ! EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT/OPERA TOR ,'lle - \000-c. G."~ I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D. ObradovichID&B I I. ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT , (FT. ABOVE MSL) ToM \) 1'h.f it l'-j' ~ I REMARKS II No analvtical sam les collected. LOCATION Fishers Island. New York \LT' ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (Annroximate PercentaClesl (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC ~ETAL PAPER OTl-!!:R .. r---- I I - 0 - Q -I 0 iOO 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 '" r 19-t~ - t. 5 I - 'It 0 '30 Ii) 5011=- S S 1# ^ ~";j~ . ...... - '<..Ii "",,-9 {, 6 - 7 - I- S 9 1= 10 11 () !O0 1- .}.. - ! 12 I- I 13 \= 14 :erv V ()~ Tt), Hi 15 i .1468\G0419iOl.DOC Project i=';d-.e(( J~lo.l\.d Lct....ci+,'\\ Sample(s) Interval(s) NI\ ~'l{li..t~~ ~ E-~ ~~k I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I cfu DVlRKA ,\ AND C) BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Ilf€.i-6 3 Test Pit Number c; E: J\~ I . '-t -4 f i , , I , lot 1'1 t- Remarks Zo ~~ 0'<1"""'::' ",G(\-'( \IV ...... J .- I) (, ~ "'---~ S^,( , I,DA. \,..::k..f 'JraloW\ ,....s,..vi/ T ')'''1 ~. -) - n"'- h. pl"''''c. r~1" Il r \Of\d ' s' 1+, 'II ~(i, I l-t1.L >"Ln.l r J \)1. -1"."" S,,"O. .. ), \+, tr. \,..,iJL.j OL""-! ~\:.. I.. s".J.-l- ~'~" -~("r (l"1' ~t- G '-'--'I hu't+t.>M. :u~.,~~) l'-~~ ""...~ ',.. N"TN'- I"'-"I,tJ l (',v;<' "" I"" c:. Ilt'bj - 1"\0..", ,f..\vl.M) "" ~rw-. ,+. .....,c..""J"'" TPP..(Wi!.PM_ .vtl~ 'J~..y d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG : I TEST PIT NO. TP-Y I PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCATION Fishers Island LandfiIVD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York EXCAVAT~RIE~~lrMENTfOPERfTOR . * . 1:,,-s Ie>! - lO O-c. u..r~' INSPECTOR/OFFICE STARTIFlNISH DATE 4-f D. Obradovich/D&B S It. I q 7 ~ j~ -~ ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOMOF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) 17> tu.l Dd-!1... 15' b" (,.oc~ -J REMARKS No analytical samples collected. f2.",I\I"" oJ PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IA....roxim.te Pare.ntaaa.) . (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS P'-~STlC METAL PAPER OTHER - - 0 95 Tro..Q. ~. T\"TI-CJ... Tr4.u- l( \..;.~.f - D 0 :> ",..~I.."") 1 w...sk. - 2 - 3 () 0 - Ice 4 - qO.... TrQl...~ ... b' 'j 5 0 '0 1rQ u.. -:-(1. '^ "'I :11-f< - 0 6 - 7 - B - 9 0 0 100 T....c..e. - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 E'rvv OF TEST !'if - 14 - 15 . I 468\G0429702 DOC - !! ~DVlRKA UQ) ::nLUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE U_ Project ~\ ~ ke(" r ~I Cll\.d l4,,-J+,' \l Sample(s) Interval(s) N/,.. ~j.(. U1- -fta S~~ F- 3 Project Number , If , '1-6 Test Pit Number T P- L.t S"E"" Nw o. I" ~ 2. I' k..r+-", ~..~r, +to p'~r 'I- ~oll U r ~'f $'1\-1- CJ~J.~e. ...",r I) 't 10 t, .f -1'0\ _~. fT. ~..\It.' ~ ...I.~'\c.r f'\~-h',~" I.ML ,..,er t lor. s..../. ~"'. ~" f. ~ "...,,~ of r; ~ +r. r L... ~+-'C. (.,.f~" ? ~....-J ~ S.' \+ te #0'" \C.;.,( . ~ I.O\;tJ,v(' ( '> 'J.,'..,.. r. (l~1 o ~ (0 I} , . I " ' V.l--.,r\ S;"",""'. cG.~ Remarks sh\\ ~~ Q 'o+w.. - v. ~ a..e.;,... ~ ,'t.1J,\.j I~)" Ul ~j cJ.1le ~ '"....Ick-~ - - . !!!!! d~ Dvirka - and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG _I TEST PIT NO. P-S PROJECT NAMElNO. Fishers Island Landfill/D&B No. 1468-8 EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT/QPERA TOR "le. - \ 000-<:: I rl "",' +r INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.ObradovichID&B -I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT II (FT. ABOVE MSL) \0 ~ ~t'\. l1 I ~ I ~ p,,1' l ; 1- LOCATION Fishers Island. New York ST ARTIFINISIi PATE J 5 "n 1'1<; _ Jll 0 CONDITION OF PIT ~J. - . REMARKS . :'-10 analytical sam les collected. ~...v V""-' . ~"'~ ,,,,,.<,.{.:.-,~<(...I r~ S I - I I I . - PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDroximate Percentaoes\ (feet) (ppm) ("IoLEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER 0 0 C- teo Ir. - 1 - T,... lfo~ 2 0 0 bo Tr-_ \( "'~0 .- ,,", 1.,,-,\' . I 3 .,. _~-k I- I e 0 95" if 5 i r. I .. 4 ' r. '" """J~ I- S - i 6 I .- i 7 .- 1- 8 0 iO 5 8'0 '::'S' <5 9 0- - I 10 1- 11 - 1- 12 13 i- i 14 i- 15 . ~.'o..i; - . ~ .......d."'.f'U..ll'..."., r'\r\r - - d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG ~ i TEST PIT NO. iP-S" P'J<- !. ....F2.. PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCATION Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York EXCAVATORlEQUIPMENT~PERtTOR ':LdIC-I \i--/DOO-<;,. (.."r H-eIW.-tt- INSPECTOR/OFFICE STAR;~INISH DATE D. ObradovichID&B s-h 47 1" f_ 10 10 ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT ! (FT. ABOVE MSL) 11> Ii I b'1 (;",,01 I REMARKS \-k ~'1 No analytical samoles collected. ~;" - PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDroximate Percentages) ! (feet) (ppm) (ey. LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER - 16 C C ~o * ~ w~\t< J. - to <; L~ <~ ,,,,-1...,,,, 17 '-j' - 18 EN) crF n:rr flr - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - i 23 I - 24 - 25 \= , i- i- - - : I ,", - . . . - I I clli ~:uca - TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~,d~(( j{lal\.C< Le(....J~'\l Sample(s) Interval(s) I\-Jjo.u,,+- -h. ~-l s-kk Project Number llf " ~ -6 Test Pit Number jP-; at 3t 5- I If Remarks 5E'" NW o 2.0' ~ "!)\C. 0 "'~ 1 PIClS+,(. b..~ WII~~, 11'*1(. ~)cU\, p~'" I s..I; ..,. l""lck.r.s @ iP~ c;~ o.~ o.b'" - ..e.~ I - !!!! d[Q) Dvirka - and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. T P - 6 PROJECT NAME/NO. Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468-B LOCATION Fishers Island. New York ! EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMENT/OP ,S It- \"OO-c.. INSPECTOR/OFFICE D. ObradovichID&B ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) lCtz,.\ D~ H-- 1$ /1.1 b e:"",;rr STARTIFINISH DATE c;, q o'tO-UI-c CONDITION OF PIT 'Thp-e><.c.. B~- F",r-~coJ REMARKS . ~o analvtical sam les collected. \6,,' PI.!" PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS /ADDroximate Percentages} . (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL ".A,PER OTHER 0 0 0 (00 - ... "'..s;jc .~ 1 0 70 T l1tU 301- nau.. T'r.t(..l.. - 0 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - D 0 100 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 ....1:' .,. - eND (\F Pti' 13 - . 14 - 15 I 1-,,':1- I I I- I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~DVlRKA UQ) ::"LUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~jsk.e(( j{Ic1l\.d Lct....J-h'\\ Sample(s) Interval(s) \'J Pt "-olj<<t.e.,,+ ~ D-2. ~~ Project Number l"gS-6 TP-b Test Pit Number <;e- o r1I-~ ~\'\.(.. 't-(.,l.A'f(rt,W()"'~) 2. t' NW ~ .> <- '-... l-+ o~. o~...,,;c. ~,t( I :> o G...~'f slit, s~..... c\,,'1 (C.\"'1~1 sn~) .../ litt~ P~~..\'". v.{' tlA~~ 't s,.,~ g 10 <:....v..c.+ 'j~1 ~H-~c.,..t ....\s~ ~ul- br. v.f. s.....cl ~~; I,,; l:*i.& Q...t. '* lcv~-e . c...;. ~ \ I. s ~ ),6t11 cl.e.l , """sf- L3' b v'" ioler C. b~- ~..r~:_,~ I~ Remarks Not ~"re If bn.. _+', if ......-+;IIe. TPP.()4S1S.PMc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dlb Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. -rP-l PROJECT NAMElNO. Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468.B LOCATION Fishers Island. New York EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENTI. MIl. l-+-IOOO-C INSPECTOR/OFFICE D. Obradovich/D&B ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT, ABOVE MSL) To H.J Dt ~ I \ I ~ PERATOR 'LL C...r ( I:-I<......TI- STARTIF1NISH DATE J 5(/ (lo_\2- 0 CONDITION OF PIT \J G o~ d REMARKS No analvtical sam les collected. f.,,"I',", , PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDroximste PercentBoesl (feet) (ppm) ('" LEL) SOIL ~LASS PLASTIC Mf.;AL PAPER OTHER I 0 0 0 to 0 - 7S'lr W,%"T ... 1 0 0 olD 5 Th '-"- Th.CL b r - 1- 2 3 .30 10 TL.u.. Tr,,<...e.. T:..!l.l.L nl<u' Tru:.- 4 I:) 0 't'tv>\ i'-~ , - ''1.>.:.", 5 \......""~ - ~U'S 6 - , 7 '- S - 0 0 80 9 )../) - J:,~uoLu5 10 - 11 - ENO G' TCft' PIT' 12 - 13 1- 14 - i 15 .1468\G0429701_DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ DVlRKA UQ) ~~LUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE - ' r (II1l\.d La.,,-J~l\l , 1.fc.~-6 Project +-- i {ken" Project Number Sample(s) Interval(s) NA Test Pit Number iP-"l ~j' .n, c.,z.. ~~~ 0 ~O' ~ Sf" Ny..) ~- o I .-...if G.f ~ .l\~(~ \ I M.~-d I ~ I ~ I \ E> ~ or~"",c::. It>.yu- I I I \ I[r G.....1. <;,'/~ .. r n.,J -.J/ c... H~ f" f b..t.lk..! ... ;~ o P 1~~-f1c:.. b., r, +to plii i)~(I~~Y s' r"'"v,.. . .l 13'~ .;:;I+"t- 100~ (-h~e.i"t~,,\:-., \,., "'^ "'1-4 S ," +c.,,) , r'rtf-u.. +. s c..~.cl -""'."d,....... f~..t~'C. s f.,CAfe.r{ ~r. r~J- ;.....,. ~L. ",eI~; 1..-,. ..... '"""-irt1 r"l~.,...I"'1 /"'^r~./ Remarks P-Q.Cv~((1 ~ ~f 1,) Cl "( ~rJ S 1-H+ ,;1- TPP-04I5....... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. TP-g PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCA nON Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMENT/,ERATOR ~ J,A\.5IC.. 4 -(flOO- C CA., ( !+eON; INSPECTOR/OFFICE S~~TIF1NISH DATE :> D. Obradovich/D&B ~61(n r"-z.1 ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) TIki p!pf'J.. IS' ;a Good ~ REMARKS No analytical samoles collected. PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDroximate Percentaaes) (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER 0 0 0 100 - 1 - 2 - 1- 3 4 - 5 5 - 0 0 So to 30 5 6 - 7 - 8 - : 9 - 10 - 11 I I - 12 I - : 13 D 0 [00 - 14 - 15 I [NP ()f 'Cr - 'Ir .1468\G042970:.DOC I cfg DVIRKA ) AND I 0 BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE I I Project ~;S"~rr I~lo......A L~,,-~~'\l Sample(s) Interval(s) I I I I I .1 o I I .. I I 11 I I I Remarks I 'PP."." PM' Project Number I Lf (.i -G TP-8' MJQ(..tI'+ ~ tH~ f"-I skk Test Pit Number ~~. o ~ ~af~~l l-JIN 22./ ~ '>- I c,.,.~ 1 SI \t t s o~, \\'1+-lt ,.,.01, be $r..,.,J., t<. 1 ~s+"c. \)L l>f~".,ic. \/A'te.r \ ~~o.S~'<. w~')k l~.~ I,o."l v01<.{k,)j s~ ~\.~s I ~+..\ I Aloud wi ~r- 6 \K. ~.."ol.;- ,:\t ~A 1 ~ i IT :c..~<:.r,o~ . ,- I >- I I d~ ~~~ka o Bartilucci I CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT NO. TP-~ I PROJECT NAMElNO. ,. Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT'OPERA TPR "sle -Ieoo-( C.IMI I-kW\* I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D. Obradovich/D&B I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) To tJ..\ Q tL ::> 10 I b TEST PIT LOG LOCATION Fishers Island. New York CONDITION OF PIT Poor - ",,)f1..bk REMARKS ~o analvtical sam les collected. I I I I I I I I I I I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A....roximate PercentaQesl (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC I METAL PAPER J (''?'HER - -I- e tJ 0 \00 - 1 \l.""'....I-k - 2 0 0 70 T n.u.. 3D" ~ Truu.. ;" - I><(.~\ 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 100 7 0 0 - 8 - 9 - 10 iUJP OF i!~ fti - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 I .1468\G04:970:'.DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I db DVlRKA AND o BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project J:'irh..e(( I~It1"-.,( Let,,-J~'\l Sample(s) Interval(s) tJl\ Mjau,J ~ F-l >t..~ Project Number Ilf'i-B Test Pit Number TP - ~ _: ~~\ ...- ' , J'~N." ., 1.-, :.. ~-~~ Glft(.\.--i> fV'J~..J S lIMit ot ~{k I I o I ;t r --". b T i.RcJ-' \ ~ r. f s ~",J 'I- sd';'; ).2..'- N > -n..~ ...,.. \ 1 , , IO.J.. I I , / G.~ 1 s; t+ I (,M.Q.. \.r. )4 "\J- ~ Co <:'CtHt ,.... "I 1"1GY''''' ~ re.'( $,'It- t ei,"f vI '0. { ~a"J I ...---' '- /' -- ---' G.(! '1 $, \-:- ~ 5...,c.l, / 1,l;ttL ')'II<"t\ ..... r.b~~ Remarks 'lc f..", J \ ;"';+ o~ wk ...+ ("',1))(. : 0' t.I. o~ MOV...J I TPP~.PMol I I drcs ~~~~:CCi I lQ) CONSULTING ENGINEERS TeST PIT LOG : TEST PIT NO. TP-IO I' PROJECT NAME/NO. Fishers Island Landfill/D&B No, fVIe l.a I EXCAVATO, R/EQUIPMENT/OPERAT 1:1\\',;: \~'iCO -- f lH' I. INSPECTOR/OFFICE , 0 ObradovlchID&B 1468-B LOCATION Fishers Island. New York , I!" ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT I (FT. ABOVE MSL) T Il tu \ (-Vh 11/ i REMARKS I' \;0 analvlIcal sam les collected. CONDITION OF PIT V t r (;ood I I I I I I I I I I I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDrDximate Percentaaesl (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLA:S 1 CLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER I I I 0 0 C I~O , I- I 1 ,- , 2 - 3 - 4 ~ w<t~+~ - I S '?O ~ 5 () 0 \0 <5 5 t" - I..~S 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 , - I 10 I - 11 - 12 I - 0 0 100 13 - 14 - 15 I I , I I I I , I . ~o~,GOJ:":;~:>:' DOC I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci I CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG , <.l.f 1 , LOCATION Fishers Island. New York STAFlTIFINISH DATE 7 7 #'-/~'" CONDmON OF PIT iI. G-od I I I I I I I I I I I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IA....roximate Percentaoesl , (feet) (ppm) ("IoLEL) SOIL GLASS o!.ASTlC METAL PAPER OTHER , f--- 16 I:) 0 leyo - 17 - Tn, P r I 18 OoI.D De. - 19 - , 20 - 21 - \- 22 23 - 1- 24 25 - 1- - , , i_ I- I - i I . I 468\G0429702.DOC I ~ DVlRKA I.IQJ ::nLUCCI Iroject j:'i s le.(( .:iample(s) Interval(s) I---AJ i<<Lt,t\+ +-0 I I (10'-1 S~r-K -lo S\'1~ clown I TEST PIT PROFILE I~to.~ NPI l Ci,,-ci.+,' \ l Project Number 1 If €. i-& Test Pit Number TP-\ 0 F-J.. d~~ I I I I II II I II r I l=Iemarks I 'P-04O!.PM4 t,5 . -- - -\ t o w If' -, o , "'loAG P14c;~(. 'I.l.l wd~, ~\dS, by, SfA.-.J 'i- ~\~, U~\t. .,...L~! ....1Nbi)J, +r. uHlc.s 10 G. ~'/' -~f<<'~ (d~) sil+-, hlHe ~-~ s..."tl '+- (.\"'1 . c.-,o..(r (~wo..~~ 7) , ....is+- "(O~""'IlW Q) Iio.Wl)~. \.,-"': },~ I I I I TEST PIT NO. TP- \ \ PROJECT NAME/NO. Fishers Island Landfill/D&B No. 1468-B I, EXCAVATOFllEQUIPME :r/OPERATOR Ilq g -IOOo-C. c....r I f.\(..v; t+- IIINSPECTOFllOFFICE : D.ObradoYlch/D&B d[b Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TeST PIT LOG LOCATION Fishers Island. New York I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT , (FT. ABOVE MSL) lott.tl Dc. f\.. 10' ~ i REMARKS I : "0 JnJl~tlcJI samoles collected. lot-..- I I j I I I I I I I I I I PID I EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH ' READINGS GAS READINGS (Approximate Percentaaes) (feet) (ppm) (% LEL) SOIL .1_GlJlSS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER I 0 I I I- i 1 1- 2 - , 3 '- j D D 100 4 I I - 5 - 1 6 .- 7 - 8 , - 9 I - , 10 1 n'( - I E'lJ 1) 0 -n-;,.... 11 - I 12 I - 13 - 14 - ! , - I I I I 0 I . . ~h8',GO~>~2: DOC I I I TEST PIT NO'T p_ 12. I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG PROJECT NAMElNO. I Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. 1468-B , EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMEN IOPERATOR . "lie -100 -C (I . INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.Obradoyich/D&B LOCATION Fishers Island. New York I I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tookl 4-1.~' ~ CONDITION OF PIT G-QuJ, I REMARKS I '10 analytical samples collected. I I I I I I I I r I . i PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS I DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A )Droximate Percentaaes) I (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER 1--0 - I I - 1 - 2 '- I 3 ; I - 4 0 0 [DO - 5 I . I - 6 - , 7 - 1- 8 9 - EIVV Of TnT' P IT" I 10 i- 11 - 12 i - 13 I - 14 - I 15 I I i . i ..;,.,8\GOJ:\j';'C,: DOC I cfu OVIRKA \ AND I 0 BARTtLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE I I I I I I I .\ o I I 3 I I I I I I Remarks 1 '...0........ Project J:td\.2.(( r~lo.l\.d LA....d+,'\\ Project Number ll.fbi-& TP- \1.. rf t)-Y Sample(s) Interval(s) t..s R\ Test Pit Number 1tr)'\(JUM.~ B~ Lf sh...lt (IS; to ~ M{f-1., ~~'1 N.lyf1... ~ 40 I I\.orl'\-. ,k g - ~ ) S 1o.t"fs tv 5 lo~ uf 30' ~O NW, ) ).5' i>, r+ ~...aJ wco.y ~ SE p~.I), ~\c: \o.'fe" G...c'j <;,!~)- .,.'" s....J J ,,>> ..I.y ""'.__.. J t<..cl. -;'o,,-si...i~ siij. I' Ol/.'j'e-, s"-l-c.',,'1 Gf~'f-l.o.r- ,. .,. , . ~ .e'f <;,i"t- ... v. f . 1......1 , t:f.l-I.. f..l.&y 9. ~ fG.( Q q' "j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dLb Dvirka and Bartilucci o CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG i rEST PIT NO. TP-13 PROJECT NAMElNO. 1.0CATlON I Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No. l468-B Fishers Island. New York , EXCAV~TORlEQUIPMENT/OPERATOR!-kw,' . 1:"jlt.., H-Io()()-c. / f"Arl ,'if , INSPEC'l"ORlOFFICE S!t,RTIFINISH DATE ( i D.ObradoyichID&B 5 '7/'17 i1..l' - I I I EI.EVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSI.) TO~( /hpt1.. - 'I (6'( {J...:;J I REMARKS .I '10 analytical samples collected. I PID EXPI.OSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAI.S DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A~proximate Percentages) i (feet) (ppm) (%I.EL) SOIL ' GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER i 0 I - D D 100 fueL 1- 1 2 ,- 3 - 4 ,- I 5 - 0 0 100 1- 6 , 7 - 8 1- 9 !IF n:: IT PIT - e~~ 1 10 - 11 - I 12 - 13 i 14 - 15 I I . iJ.o8\G,:'~:9'"10~,DOC I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I db OVIRKA \ AND o I BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project _f I dV!. ( ( I.~ \ c1l\.d --.L 4 "- cl~' \ I Sample(s) Interval(s) tv A. It:lOI ~+ TV-ll Project Number llfb.g-& TP-l~ Test Pit Number inr+- flo..J '~ 0 I I Tr<:.e\.'t\.t ~ I 'l.. ';) f ~ , ~ ~"\.o S t..d'1 +,. , sl..~ vi> ,r..1U ~"1C.~t1 3 ~~. O"~"""G ,""....., rook Glt'f~ l.... s,'I+. l~~' s...J ,(~.(. I."'j ""OS~ _~ sf: ~~.... . ~~,. .,"" ,,' / i.." s~tF' w/ f~ -_o'~~~ 'S! It If..rc,S ..'_~' _=~=_,__~ _.__ u' ------ .:::: /'1~llt. - . .---. b c;.,e'1 511~ l' V.~, s..--J -!y, l...ulJ.tt's , NC4nllc:. a,y q '1"1" 'f , 'I ) oc. l S 0' 0I'''"{r. ~ ~' .~ _ r.N'~-" ~..."J hJ.'( r ';"I((e) Q~J;l~~~..+ C.PI'~(I' ~ ~+-,,,-,:-""" ,~:.L , Remarks 1...~ !\.G.-n' 'f Co 'M. .d. ' I ':'P"~i5.P""'" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. Tf -11.\ PROJECT NAMElNO. Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B EXCA V A TORlEQUIPM~NT/PPERATOJ;l "sle fI-io - (. Cui ~W\ INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.ObradovichID&B ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) To~1 Dt ~ \S/b REMARKS "! 0 analytical samoles collected. LOCATION Fishers Island. New York STAFjTIFINISH DATE ~ 1/'11 r4)-3<lC CONDITION OF PIT (;.cod PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (ADDroximate PercentaClesl (feet) (pI'm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHE1 .. 0 10 - - 0 0 '0 '-'...0 1 r-.4tl ( - ( 4.) pl.u..l t 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 '" loJll~+-e - 4c;l' :>..~s 6 0 0 50 <5 <5 T (1( u.. - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 100 - 0 0 13 - 14 - 15 l::"tJ~ t!p- ntn l'li . i -468\G04:!9"O:!.DOC I Project ~'sk.e.r( J~la"-ci La.,,-d+,'\\ Sample(s) Interval(s) 11 PI I I I I I II o I C&.O("~fw..l+) J.. I I I I IIO~ I I I Remarks I -??o'" P~' I clli DVIRKA . AND I 0; BARTILUCCI I PrJ1~V<-Vl.t to TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number llfb~~ TP- \Y Test Pit Number c.~ '1 c; k..~ 8', SfA"J. 'l- ro'f-s fl..s~c },...,. ~f~, ~,..H .... ~-k' \ - -.......-.-------. ~ .f,. "" <;..."J '6-lo1't.1 s,' l+ I s.~ i 'a\ '-j.. /..0-00 -_____ ~ ~ rl-t. . _.\..rr .J ~' --- ~ ". f_ fn<. ~.j W't~, ~\"\f I ... ~~l _._~ '2>.,. ~ -.... s:uJ i-', ~l / ~c ~ ...6.~~ J byt.l 5;'1-r 'io f- 'M SI).^cl ~W\dLf5 ~ IUWo..lc..ed ? ~ J' NI)';";"~ t ;l....,,/e I\J --=- .~~~'d c:.,.t." s!~+ J s~m JUIN" ~ d"t' f04iJ o NW ~ov\dt-r \ , I~l ]. 'f I ., SE \)~. 0.". \lk,,(.r ".L S, 'T , ~ I)Mcll. I '.. \ -<. .. '" w..~k .qlaSS , - --; I / I . I 'It' 5_ S,,J,a .J to..- pIT '1'1 'us 'lis, ~~ ..,. sk *' '.v")~ .\..t.Y'" ~cl (. "k ~9'w, t&. ? - , tN.,.",' -:^ t ,.... ~..;.., ;.....c...,.~l ..~ <;:-...1:.. ;~-~ ~~ r , -s-p_.~ ;.,.. , I I d~ ~~~~:CCi I LQ) CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG . TEST PIT NO. TP-/5 I ! PROJECT NAME/NO. t: Fishers Island LandfilllD&B No 1468-B i EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMENTI ERATOR i )I~ - I OQ - c. L4,( ....;"* I INSPECTOR/OFFICE . D.ObradovlchID&B Ii ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT , (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tcfnl ~ I 51 b REMARKS I i :\0 analvtlcal samoles collected. I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION Fishers Island. New York S ART/FINISH DATE S; , ~ 30<>- 'fir CONDITION OF PIT G~-". GooJ PID EXPLOSIVE I DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A~Droximate Percentaaes) (feell , (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER I --'J I 0 0 1()O 1- 1 '- 0 0 ~O ~S l~ '> <~ 1 2 3 - "K """54-( 4 I 8"0 >l- i" be..~s' - 1r",~ T r~<.L Tyc..u... 5 0 0 .to - 6 - - - 8 - 9 ! - i , 10 - I i 11 0 0 lbO - ! 12 i - 13 - I I 14 I - : , '5 of mT i'T i I I I i eND , , . ":'1'1"'\GG~:l)--,: DOC clli DVIRKA \ AND o BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number IIf (. 9 .2, Test Pit Number --=r.P- \5 I .l-o I s+...r+S I to <; \~pe. ~oWI'\ o N "\"'11. d~ or" I"'fc,r P'r,.f~C. J,(a' wuk, 3Iu~. ~.""e ~o.o.oI .... ~ ll+: I~' u.~~lL , w...kl 6r. r.....,] I S'.~ '1t"t'f ~I\ ~ I li\-l-lt c.~'f 1Y. Ioost. VI" rk G-rt.'1 silT, j ,r"-l. G L...'1 ,\ 'lI'l'lt f $~~ - Br. >",..J '+ ~n'1 slk v' ....oisf (Q) bhr. L~' ~ 10 t- I , I 12.. r I , , $ .-/, pl..sk. I. ~ '""s ~ ---. /1'" _....-- I I dlg ~~~ka o Bartilucci I CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! TEST PIT NO. TP _( b PROJECT NAME/NO. LOCATION , Fishers Island Landfill/D&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York , EXCAVATOR/EaUIPMENY~PERATOR \-l- .r"SI~~ U .IOOO-\.. Lll.r\ ~WI INSPECTOR/OFFICE SYRirlNISH DATE D Obradovlch/D&B ., 'i/'1 8',r -~Jo ! ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT . (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tent Dot'k i I)' b~ v. G....J ... ! REMARKS , :\0 analvflcal samoles collected. i PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS , ! DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A oDroximate Percentaaes) (Ieet) (ppm) ("10 LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER i 0 100 () 0 - 1- 1 2 - , 3 - 4 - 5 '175" ~ ",C.S1e - (J D IS 5 <5 T'r~(.e. ,. """,s 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 .- 11 - 12 - 0 0 ICO ,0 '0 - 14 - , 5 I 'eN ~ Of reS I 171T" I I I ! . ,,;,~s',G;).;.:~-,"\: DOC I ~ OVIRKA I u.s, ~~~TILUCCI I I Project r::-~ ~ k.e. (( Sample(s) Interval(s) I I I I I '0 I !, I I I I I I I I I -"00<95 'M. TEST PIT PROFILE I ~la,,-LLa.,,-d.f;\l f'J~ Project Number ll.f('~-€> Tr-\b Test Pit Number it-.f,tac.u,':' ~ . t. - L\ s t.- k.t. I,.) " I) S'''f~ s J....... .l.o IN~ ~ ""J ~ I---- +Ij. c!f<t4 , w 1=" ,.,,- li>, -- ,l)t. (),q.(ou-r ...r . ~-"~ -r'<'" - r-""'1 ro.ts +-c s.~ 50:"" '1,:-- --'_ , J'~ .,.. Yto+-t --..::::---- ~..:...s''''.../. . -..--- r'I'.l.:>';"'c' ~"'-14 w.,'"t. \...U.I. c -' -------~I~-.~ .J . , ..... .a....G I ~.....~~-~I ~.:.(,J....:.. -'- ~lO\u ' " ___ ,J .I - i , , i \ \ IS · \ \ \~j:.. G'q $' i.,-/ <;..__ ...f- ... .....J ~ ' , J. ..~~.\,- .~ -- . / I ! I C : "1' i I -Il-L...----. , / i \ 10 ;- \ -:- / / I , / ~G.l":~....- dt:: -:'~\I .; ',-~ c.."-'1 . I '.ul ....,c.e..!._ f~'''''~- ~i"-l<'" Remarks "' .~ a ~ -c. r(J ,"" \-10 bQ - "'01" po..~(.~ {..o..,(..f' ~ I I. I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. TF - n PROJECT NAMElNO. Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B EX~~:AT~~~~_M~TI ,&R,A10~,'1't INSPI;CTORlOFFICE D.ObradovichID&B ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) 7a ~ I f}~.fh 7' ~ REMARKS ~o analytical sam les collected. LOCATION Fishers Island. New York PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IA :ll)roxlmete Percentaaes} (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL P".PER OTHER 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 ~ Cl (00 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 bf~ o;Z Te,T 1fT - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 I I . 1,J,68\G0429702.DOC I I I I Project i='ISk.eU' J~lo.,,-d L4"'oi-'c"\\ Sample(s) Interval(s) JA I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I cfu OVIRKA , AND C, BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number llfbi-P> TP - 11 Test Pit Number ~ v+ 5'+r..~ i" a Wt~+ enci c+ Te::JJ E D t;~' - i)t <>,... !ll.~<" wj ,r,~'1 v",,,+-~ ~~ ......~ ---;;~:=-:-._;:;. - -:- n.'f\ Ic.~s<s of oc.~a S'>./>n", i ,', d _L, +- ' ~",,,~ ,,'1..'\ T. ,. ~" ,t\ 6....- v-t ~~,...J.... 1\. ',~ I'J..,...; +.....\.,-l.. ' I' t dr.....,", ~.' ~~---.~ - ~--.__.__.'" ---.---..- ..---.---.. -"~- ~ .-: c ~Gl ---- Remarks ;...\\ No.'\-w(,. T r~ \ 11\ e.. ~ W '> -PP.o.95P~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULnNG ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. 0 Tr-\ PROJECT NAMElNO. Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B LOCATION Fishers Island. New York INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.Obradovich/D&B ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tok( De j1, 13' b REMARKS No analvtical sam les collected. ST RT/FINISH DATE r <lo 11(17 /01>-/1 CONDITION OF PIT e,..ocd PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IADDroxlmete Percentaoeel (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER 0 0 0 100 - 1 - 2 - 3 """S <.S <.S - 0 0 bO 30 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 () - 0 100 10 - i= 11 12 13 .. EN]) Df roT PIT - 14 - I 15 . I 468\G0429702.DOC I I Project t:'~ {kerf I ~I <1l\.d L a. ,,-..I+.' II Sample(s) Interval(s) N A I I I I I I Ii) ...4,~ r I I I \3 I I I I Remarks I 'Pp.o........ I cfg DVIRKA , AND I C BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number llf('8-B Test Pit Number -IP- \ ~ ~vt 'i~k Ol\ t"Q.~ W J l"?-l~ <; k.rh +- 1 \c.~ J-1)\<Jn +0 rc>~ 0- sw + Plllhfl.u MOvND 101 l>t. ~. 'c..'tc..- "oJ' 'I>bl-s ~r,;. S~{~.. S~I'1t~ C.'c..7 ~~~-~~~~ ~ - '. \' ~ ~ D.~~~;~ '811. I !;... S ""J I SoP\Jl 5; '~, C+l1.c. ("'1 v '4t '"5 (Jl>ofdey b 1 ..,. W/A5k -hbm Qrr.h h. 3' bq . v ,/ / ') N~ - 1 ~,~ I I df5 ~~~~:CCi I lQ) CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG . TEST PIT NO. TV-I I i PROJECT NAMElNO. I Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B ,EXCAVATOR/EQUIPME IOPERATO~ I - M Ie H-l 0 -( H l ""tr I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.ObradovichID&B I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT . (FT. ABOVE MSL) To tr.,( Dl f1,. I)' b' I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION Fishers Island. New York STARTIFINISH DATE 5'. g ." .",- I 2 ., CONDITION OF PIT G-o~J REMARKS :--10 analytical sam les collected. PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS . IADDrDxirnate PercentaDesl 1 (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL "lLASS PLASTIC ME'!'A!. PAPER OTHER 0 - 1 :) 0 IbO - 2 - 0 0 100 3 I. i- 4 gr; <-5 i 0" ..:::..r; Tr<<~ ~ w...~'-k i- t> 0 I" ....."11 I 5 , - 6 - 7 1= 8 9 - 1- 10 0 0 11 .- , , 12 I - 13 1= 14 15 ~N~ (j i? T""fS 1'\1 I . I 468\GO-l.29702.DOC I Iclli OVIRKA '. AND 0/ BARTlLUCCI I TEST PIT PROFILE IprOject ~,d-.eU' r ~\o.l\..d Lt(,,-ol+,'1 \ Sample(s) Interval(s) N PI I I I I I 110 I I z; I I 8' I I I I Remarks I 'PPo04i!l.F'M4 Project Number 1\.f(S-6 TP- \q Test Pit Number 1,0 ' f'O~+ ,of ~-L ..~k \J - I::. o 22' ~ 1\Jc.k. d\:.. ()"'"1' tfl.let' "'/I~ (/)l)-h 7- llot It; Dt'-.~~ -~t. ~..... ~ ~,~ ~~ '~I~ il~;tr< ""Y ;;:;t . ,~ ",,.<L -".-----..... ~ ~ ' ~ ('---.... ~ '--Z"~ H ~r(, - bh:- rd ~jft ... f-e. .......J--- w ~bh ~ ~-~,"'''' -s-k. S,,"'<I +- s; \~ , \~ ~l"ss .. 'o.+:r 10 Csre'f ~(~ si"'-, 5D~.{'r~ J.lItf.. e. \...'1 c.e..,~'j~'" ,,(t'l <.I.." - ')oML '"1'(''' 1:n~"J.._~$" G f,+-- .j.. b.W. GJ Q~P("L ltof' I I dlb Dvirka and I 0 Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS I TEST PIT NO. TY-U> PROJECT NAMElNO. I Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT/OP.ERA TOR +t r."jlo(. I-f--I()(}O-C r' f.k.w, I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D. ObradovichID&B I ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) To~( D( 0- 1(' b REMARKS No analvtical sam les collected. TEST PIT LOG LOCATION Fishers Island. New York STARTIFINISH DATE 9/ 14<-2..'. CONDITION OF PIT 6'w,I I I I I I I I I I I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (ADDroximate Percentage.) (feet) (ppmj (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER - 0 \) 0 rOO - 1 .l 5" it- \l-v..'O~ - <S <s <~ 0 0 7D ,~ 2 b,'1.S' - 3 - 4 - 0 go 5 to 5 .~c.~ 5 0 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 r) 0 IcO - 10 - 11 (ND Ilr 1U ~ f II - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 .1468\G042970:!.DOC I I db E::uca I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tl:sr 'P IT i'~FILE"" Project HSl....l;; Is. , "I"J. h II TP-2o Simple Crew t>. Obl'"ll. J~v;(..i... Sample(s) Location(s) Sample(s) and/or Well Number(s) ~bt N~ J- TP-Ir Location of sample points. wells. borings. etc.. with reference to three pennanent reference points. Measure all distances. clearly label roads. wells and permanent features. ~ I ~ 30' ~ ~ Qi t Ilope. ),,1 ~ :5 IN N~ -------- ~ -~-~f,~~::.~~-~:~~~~ ,IMS, {,'j.;. (.t,. r.d o ---- _ b~. SQ...J 'f- ,Irotl"" ~ _I. ,'tile ~r..k ....., -~I ' 7 l>~. br- l,,1F:..,,'/J.. 1- },11UA..J .. / ,k. . WMIC ?, {:It-~ I l..r-C .", tor- '. fA...J ...... ~ "3!~ I ,..k~(tS -/ --- / ./1. , ~. f.e. h I: 1/ rr-. >........ G re,,!:J I~t~ ,r.y i 3 "T stK. ~re'1 ~. / - - "I1_,..,.l .... '.'G~'" ~ ~"1 t:i....,j." ~.tc.c..t. Gw, @ 'V 10.<; . bj l.S dl9J Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG LOCATION Fishers Island. New Yark EXCA V A TOR/EQUIPMENT/OPERA TQR I'I f \H DO - ( I Ckrl \-\<.w rtt INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.ObradavlchfD&B STARTIFINISH DATE 5" 8 2.00-}'" CONDITION OF PIT J;/f - G~J I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH I READINGS GAS READINGS IAIOIOroximate PercentaQes\ i (feet) I (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIr: METAL PAPER I <:'THER I ! - . I , I ~ I 1- 0 0 90 ~ fl-rtc'(" 10 T n..'-L 1 ,- 2 - 3 - 4 I 0 0 15 5 Trr..u... 2..0 Truu - I 5 I - 6 - 7 Ef1IP Of ~T 'IT - 8 - 9 I - 10 - 11 , - i 12 - I 13 I - i 14 - i 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~DVlRKA U9 ~~LUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project _t:' i s k.e. (" r (I o.l\.J L Q. ,,-01 +,' \l Sample(s) Interval(s) _N~ Project Number 'If l. i -6 Test Pit Number T1?- 2 , 'N E o - '> IS' o ---.. I s 3\~. sdt ,.. 'bf.-fecl -:..,,-d) 5.-t ~~l, I:\:o\-\J.. wO<>c.l '" ~ " (Hf~....l~ \pLo..I+-"c.. ,p / I>..~s l. D~. ~r. -"'I~ si!.l, 15''- c.l-'1 -, k Remarks v. F\ \..f- ..t lO't4.\ W03-k ". ~.... e..J Poll ); 1+ q s..4 +0"" ).' \ ~ ~w. ~7' bJ ?Cj ~ TPP~95.PM4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~ Dvirka and Bartilucci o CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. T P -J..d- PROJECT NAMElNO. LOCATION Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B Fishers Island. New York EXCAVATORlEQUIPMENT~PERATOR lb.n . ~s ie,,! 11- 1000 - C 0<...- 'it- INSPECTOR/OFFICE S!~~:~NISH DATE ,- D.ObradovichID&B 5 ~ yt"_Lf' ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tb~l ~eof1.,. 13' \''i V &..ec,J REMARKS J No analvtical samples collected, PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS /ApDroximate Percentaaesl (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPER OTHER 0 0 0 It)O - 1 - 2 0 0 70 I'ru.e ~ I n. '-< Th(.(.. 30 - - 3 (&,.1' - w,,-sk. 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 100 9 0 0 i - 1- 10 , 11 , 1= 12 1- 13 !forD Dr rr r F!i 14 1- , 15 , . I ~8\G0429702_DOC I I I Project J:;~le.(( J~\al\.~ LC{,,-~+.'\l I Sample(s) Interval(s) NA I I I .;.' h, J(~ n>~w",'1 o I N I -+0 II I I +~~ I '. I I I I I I Remarks I ~;:ll:l.;)4gSPM" cfu DVIRKA . AND C i BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number llf(,.i-& ll'-~ Test Pit Number 4,' We.~+ cF Tf- \"\ >rr.k B~e. ~ f'I..v~ ~ 2.0' ~ s. ---~ /~c::- _'''\0,.1-11 1)(. 0"""'<:' _I~_____~ #~? (~D N1< -\ - . ------ ~ ( ---- -.. ............. ..---- I i I I +13 i , '" , '-. '" 13, - Y'd '." f Sv,J '\ .-. '~l.IIJe-f'{ ~ ~ ~1~>...( I ' ctV~ ~ , I 'J 0\11' t.(~ ~"'/O/bj I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci I CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG i TEST PIT NO. TP-;..3 I' PROJECT NAME/NO. Fishers Island Landfil1lD&B No. 1468-B I EXCAVATOR/EQUIPM T/OPERATOR . :r:.-.ll~ It-IOOO-C. (Nt \4~""1-tt- 1 ' INSPECTOR/OFFICE . D ObradovlchID&B 1 ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) 13 -tr..1 0.( \1 'b' I REMARKS I i :\ 0 analvtical samcles collected. I I I I I I I I I 1 I LOCATION Fishers Island. New York p \...ctu c.\JW~ &i IA ~i% STARTIFINISH DATE 5' If )'-9'6 CONDITION OF PIT G-oeJ i I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS i DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS IAaaraximate Percentaaesl (Ieet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL PAPE!'! OTHER I IJ - i 1 I I- I 2 - 3 - 4 - , 5 - ~ 0 \00 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - i 10 - 11 I - 12 - 13 - 14 I - , 5 I , . I ..;.t;g\GO~:9~'!: DOC I I I Project Si~ker( I.~\a.,,-J La.....d+,'\l I Sample(s) Interval(s) N ~ I I I I I I \ Dr I I I I I I I I Remarks I '""''''' PM' cfu DVIRKA , AND C, BARTl LUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Ilfb~-6 TP-23 Test Pit Number vv( 54- ~;rl{ o~ \4~ 1\oY~ I" bhrll TP-I i- TH I aft u.i+ ~ij).. J. d,'r} rb ..JIt''''.y N \--'l> ch d- , "'o~WQ.'1 s: o . ';j I ...,. ~-= ,/ -- \- '" ,. 'f -: '+ 1-<:;0."', '~L ,- s...~J - . "Q.~d , I, 1/:..)"- S~llo"Ie...ot ~, S"'''CI I'~..( )_ \ G 'P'1 ,-, ';-'l f-WI ';:,.. ,. ci ." ~ :.0 ~ , / , ----:' ~\ \ ~ \ ~ / I ;' '--- \ I' . ~vt1~(~ j I I / Q.1'"f"\/ I 12.~ I I dnc; ~~~:CCi I ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG I I TEST PIT NO. TP-J.4 I. PROJECT NAME/NO. i Fishers Island LandfilVD&B No. 1468-B I : EXCAVATORlEQUIPM NT/OPERATOR( d' I ~fl W. dOl)- (' ~~I 4<-1'1+ fA. 1..Jl-r ,.,"'-", I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.ObradovlchID&B LOCATION Fishers Island, New York 9, . U ).k.w,- 4t- ) II ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT I (FT. ABOVE MSL) 1O~1 .f'k I b . REMARKS II 'io analvtlcal sam les collected. STARTIFINISH DATE >/9f "f'f'>_(OlQ CONDITION OF PIT F<ti r - c.v=l I I I I I I I I I I I ! PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS DEPTH READINGS GAS READINGS (A PDroximate Percentaaes \ (feet) (ppm) (%LEL) SOIL G~SS PLASTIC METAL i PAPER OTHER 1__0 - 1- 0 0 1\:.0 , 1 1- 2 - - I 3 ,- 70 IS S T (Q u... 4 , 0 0 '0 , - I i 5 - 6 ,- 7 C roo - 0 8 ,- 9 E.Nl> OF nsT rl~ - , 10 I I - 11 - 12 - 13 - I 14 - , 5 I . _h~\GO-l:~4": DOC I db DVIRKA AND I 0 BARTlLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE I I Proiect_~;sk.er( I~lo.~ LC(,,-J~'\l Sample(s) Interval(s) ~ I I I I I II 0 I I IJ .i. I (, t I I '5 I I rJ I I I Remarks I '..-0." .M< Project Number 1l.f~9-6 TP~2.Y Test Pit Number b~' hs+ J TP-IS w~..:H.....ul ~ Ur'~IQpe. -D '-I' - -- r vJ \ .....:rh:" Q..-,M'C ["'ft.; - -~ lk + - c s-...n.J.) l;~ tl \+- J.. \--- C1,'C ""as .-',,~t DL~~'1- 1'...." si \+-... d''11 ~.~ j"...s+.'c., SI. fS P"~+'< b~ 'N~~k. ;L.~S 3r-j(t'f sil+ 'l- ........,(, s~"'-'!. f('f~(' ... ~l'l.u l.. < '" """5 ..H.~ !)t.. )~1 51H. ... <;r......J., for. ,I"$+,-' ,~,,/, ~t....n; ---- ,w. @I " '? S ::>j I I I I : PROJECT NAME/NO. Fishers Island Landfill/D&B No. 1468-B II EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMENT/OPERATOR J:..i f+-{ 000-( ;-tt I 'I INSPECTOR/OFFICE D.Obradovlch/D&B I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~ Dvirka and o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEST PIT LOG I TEST PIT NO. "fP-). 5 LOCATION Fishers Island. New York ELEVATION OF GROUND SURFACElBOTTOM OF PIT (FT. ABOVE MSL) Tokl ~c. "") I ~ START/FINISH DATE > '5 If 1040 - 1/' CONDITION OF PIT Fo.ir REMARKS "0 analvtlcal sam les collected. I I PID EXPLOSIVE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS I DEPTH I READINGS GAS READINGS IAoaraximate Percentaaesl I (feet) (%LEL) SOIL GLASS PLASTIC METAL I PAPER OTHER I (ppm) I I I I 0 I - 1 1h.~ - e c 9q 2 1- 3 I- I 4 - . to ... C c..: bolt.s 5 a'o 5 S TYI.I.U 1h (..€.. - 0 C> I 6 I 1- rrST PI; 7 eN j) of - I 8 ! I - I 9 I- i 10 I 11 - i ~2 I I '3 - I 14 - I , 5 I i I I : I I . ,..I'1~,GO.:.>~~: DOC I ~ DVIRKA I u.s, ~~~TlLUCCI I Project hke(( I~la".A l~,,-d+"\ l I Sample(s) Interval(s) tJ r., I I I I I II I I I I I I I I Remarks I '.."'.. .M' TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number )0' E"45+ If T~I 1l.f(.i-6 i1' -1-5 ) -.--...-......- - F 0- ! / I) $... C>f~. 1:..., {r' ~ . \ c.,(>." ~: I""" -;- br -t -.... ~.,.;.~cJ -_.~ -- 1-:--- D \ 'I."" Co '\. ;'<. 'S'\.~ ~ f f ._tc.., 1"~)5 Vu! (."bl~'f ----- -- ----- ,~ - ~ . , ','1 f , I ! / I- I d~) I I Report Number:. I I Address: I WeaU1er. OVlRKA AfCJ BARnLUCCl DAILY FIELD ACTIVI1Y REPORT Ot l'1b~-8 Project Number. Field Log Book Page Number: -f' I - 2> Project: Fl5h~n I<;ICI."'-oi LA,,-ol+lll Date: ;/,(G1 -, ~ HS"'~J" ..\..t. (AM) <;v,^"1 (PM):~ I Temperarure: lAM) SO 'F tPM) l? 0 'F I I I I I I I I I I I N~. Rainfall; (AM) (PM) WladSpeed: (AM) ,PMl Cj-t it MPH MPH Site Condition: Of I f.,~r. fl.... >sv~ ")oD8 t Personnel On Site: tU= Affiliation -D. Obn. dGV,("k T. i'/Il),\"tf G- /,,,, b"cl e <\u c.. ~",;* $'~ ~ ~t~ \),\+,-"..+ ~ ).b"";/\ SubcontraCtor WOIX COITITnPn. ~lU.ent: (AM) S ubcontr3Ctor W olX Completion: JB-DFAll (AM) () -.Ii ''v"1IId Ditecuca: Arrival l:iI= =I= --L- (PM) Inches lnches wNw ,j. 'AMI ,PM) ~_tu&'"' :rJmI 33c -~ I Jc ."" J I I d!1-. DVlRKA LS;' ::T1LUCCI I DATE: >"/5 /q 7 DAILY FIELD AcnvITY REPORT I Work pen'ormcd today by subc:onuactonS) (includes equipment and labor breakdowm: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ND ~t.i~'h"bh\l5 ~1 lB-DFAR 1- Id~ 1 OVlRKA AND BARllLUCCI DATE: 5/r; /'17 DAlLY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I'>\. sk.lt'lt\<.", ~vrv(..1 ~,,,!~' ( ~ I List specIfic inspection(s) performed and results (include problems and coaective acnonsl: N/f.\ I I 1 ._. 1 List type and locanon of testS performed and results (include equipment used and monitoring results): 1 I I f+.d \'-" C^'1-", '1 -hr I'^.I-:t'k,;.,^-<- (1. L t.L) \WI' ,""'\ r,,,,;M i.t. 1ct)~r 'f-- '1fJ.1 11'""'(; VZ.P,,-YI,V/ \>10 rw+O" I Verba! comments received from subcontraCtor (include c:onsauction and testing problems. and ecommCZlliaIionsiresulting action): Nil- I I I 'repareci by: 1 !\}IO Reviewed by: B-DFAR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~) OVlAKA AND BARllLUCCl DAll..Y FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Report Nwnber. 0,)", !'lib 'b'- 8 Date: Project Number: Field Log Book Page Number. _p 11- 10 Project: _F1ShU\ Isl~",-J Ltu\.ol+dl ;!&fq1 Address: - - Hc;~..~.lt N~. Weather. (AM) (PM): Ov4'C.4 st - d.nz.dc L...~~ .J 1\.-0." r",W\ Rainfall: (AM) 0 (PM) < I '50 Tempcrarure: (AMI I PM) ~_2. -l- MPH MPH '.V_ Din:caOD: 'F 'F WladSpeea: lAM) I pM) Site Condition: Dv-'( (" ~rw'\, . Personnel On Site: HIm!:. .J/. 0 b,-~ d. Gv I C-k L. !-kIN I +r G. . n', b. l~ ,_~v AMliAtion Anival :I::1= 7'f! -+ 3'''' \)L~ W.ML D i1-lv1 .:..r ..Ii Subcontr.u:tor Worit Commma:ment: "-ff{ ~ (AM) lnc:hes Inches ..\M) IPMl Cepamue Dmc ~,O ~ yt~- Subcontractor W orit Completion: (AM) ------ OB-OFAll I. I d~ DVlRKA .\ AND C; BARllLUCC% I DATE: .;/ b!C;7 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I Work performed today by subconuactOrlS) (includes equipment and labor breaJaiowm: No \vifc..,,,bcnrs hJ~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JS.oFAll I - I dfu: I I I I I List specific inspec:tion(s) perfonned and results (include problems and coaecnve actions/: I I I I Li3t type and location of tests petfonned and results (include equipment used and monitoring results): I I I I I I I ?repared by: I JB-DFAJl OVlAKA AND BAR11LUCCI DATE: SIb!'f7 D~Y~LDACTnnTYREPORT Geneni wort petfouned today by DdtB: fl V U C; ~ \-:: J+ f ; t \'<\. ~ k It o..tl ~ '" . +,.~Ict <Ce,'MS !AIr ."",,,,b,.,,,] ,"(",J +v...;.~ VII>. 4<.,..('1 +0 ~ ~.,\k I . \J~ J.."kl , ~ {...f ;~~".1. / l'"). i..t::L) .v i P (l) ",<.1-((' <-I (.....,.d<. k ""l ,.......,kr '\, . \ ~ ,"'^-O "'-t ru r,V" Verba! comments received from subcontraCtor (include constrUction and testing problems. and recommendations/resulting action). NA . D,iND. Reviewed by: 1- Id~ I I Report Number: I I Address: R <;~( ~ '!... I Weather. OVlAKA AND BARTllUca DAILY FlELD ACTIVTIY REPORT 03 Project Number. 1 ~b ~- 8 Date: ;/7{qj Field Log BookPage Number: f- ll- l b F, s hus IslClI"\.J LA....ol-h11 Project: N~. (AM) M. (ll>v J'f / t;. '.... "I :..:..... "j: Rainfall: (PM): _M. )""""1 I Tempe=: I.-'>Ml '-/o"',-'F WlDdSpeed: (AMl 5'-t'~ MPH (PMl C; 0 'F (PMl '':' MPH (AM) (PM) o " lnc:hes Inches W01lld Dizl:cuoa: .-\M) (PMl ()) )J W 'V I Id~) I DVlRKA AND BARTlLUCCI DATE: s-h /Cn DAILY FIELD AeTIV'lTI" REPORT I Worle periormed today by subconuactorts) (includes equipment and labor breaJaiown.: N j <<-'!1&QIIlY<< cl7;Yr ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l-DFAR I- I d~; I I I I I List specific inspec:tion(sj performed and results (include problems and coaeaive actions): I I I I List type and location of tests perfonned and results (include equipment used and monitoring resulrs): I I I I I I I Prepared by: I )8-DFAR OVlRKA AND BAATTLUca DATE: 5/7 /17 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Genera! worit perfoaned today by D&B: _+'~!1 c1 ~ .- "^ ') ) l"'U f"'f'(. 0 1ft "-Wr'V':"V DIGt ~f.rr...b<t ()"u <;~ \-:: 5t f:t. ,,,,- 5k.lt<lti'c.", . rJ o..-h\,v-F :\......flt>.l\ t~JJ.(( ~ , , ~ A" J ,-:/ /-c-r- h..Jf",:, y-;:..,-ti Nt 'h 'ela( TIll'" S ( Nit A.~",JvhJ. 'v1 r W h( .f,,~1 .vI (.-'-"~.I \I->t.~ a~J /~.rc. y- ./ UJ""'; '- vZ-(o r) .... ?u eeL (.~.) Verbal co=ents received from subcontractor (include consauction and testing problems. and recomm;:i"~"';'Jnsiresulting action): JJ..IND.. Reviewed by: I Id~) I OVlRKA AND BARTlLUCCl DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I Report Number: oLf Project Number: I .~ b '? - 8 I Field Log BOOkPageN~ f' 17-).;).. Project: F,5h~r5 .lslo.n.J LAl'\.ol+,\1 I - - Address: H5U'" .l~. N~. Date: r; IS' ( q 1 I Temperarure: :.-\M) (PM) <.oJ\" ': <), -(~C 'F .:;- -, t. WlDdSpeea: (AM) "- (pM) Rainfall: (AM) <.) lnches (PMl --r- Inches tv' of MPH MPH 'oV"1lId Dizec:aoa: '.\Ml {PMl I Weather: (AM) (PM): S"vn "f .J, I Site Condition: On. I I Personnel On Site: Anival Dcp........ tiI= A ffili:nion llms: Dmc _D. o I?,-j. d G\Il c..h t)L~ ycC I.( 00 c.. i-kw:ft 4/..;<" pir/y,rt 5~ko. ~ F (l f.J,bv /4- ~/ I D )0 I I I I I I !,if', I iubcomractor Worit CC'......~n ~..lent: I SubcontraCtor Worit Completion: (AM) (AM) (PMl I JB.DFAR 1- Id~) I DVlRKA AND BAA"LUCCI DATE: ~/8Iq7 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I Work perionned today by subcontraCtoIlS) (includes equipment and labor breakdownJ: fJ. r- /,( ~" m dvr tv':''''''1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,B-DFAIl I- I d~: I I I I I List spec:mc inspection(s) performed and resuits (include problems and coaecrive actions): NAr I I I I List type and locauon of tests performed and results (include equipment used and monitoring resalls): I I I I I I I Prepared by: a DB-DFAll DVlAKA AND BAR11LUCQ DATE: 5/Q/1.7 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Generai worX performed today by D&B: _+,~ 'ct ~ .-.11\ Ii . l~f1rv'- + :~ :J1te..f' .j.e-J j... . J... " k <d.,!) h ' I ( flvu <;~e.. ~ rt ~; 1- /JQ.liAI w u>../fJ-,h" \". ~k.lt'lh<."" , ~ Cv.i ~ .J ;;t C V~",;, "'" /f? ,.....".Jf:,.- .- y;.'.:r/"~ , Verbal comments r~ived from subcontraCtor (include constrUction and testing problems. and recommemiatiol1SlTesuitiDg aaion): fir- JY. W!). I Reviewed by: I Id~ I OVlFlKA AND BARnLuca DA.ll.Y FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I<.epon Number: D6' Project Number: 1'1 b ~ - B IField Log BookPage N~ r ,~3- J 4 'I' . .'roject: _Fl 5 hus 1<,; IQl'\.oi LA,,-ol'T"l \ I 1_- \ddr=ss: HSUfC,.l~ N~' Date: r;/q (cn Iwelllher: Ove.Ul.IJ...- VlI.i"IM Rainfall: C-Wt'lj -J 'F WiDdSpeea: lAM) C;~1. MPH 'F I PM) MPH (AM) 0 Inches (PM) ..-L- Inches 5S'w "Y01Dd Oi1ecuoa: .-\M) (PM) ..:L.- (AM) (PM): I '-i" - emperarure: (AM! (PM) 110 I';ite Condition: ...J.vtf I'ersonnel en Site: ADival ]jm; '1"0 ~l ~r'v ! Il'a.o ~ Affilia.tion I I I I I I _D. 01,,-.1 d G\i I c..~ (.. f.k w rt+- B' ~ . \-tel/lll. G. n;b, 1.t1u DLf, f,.Q{..J<~ Dilt. ).~CG'" ..v p.,J.,.,'l<,. ~ ;~fr. ("0... ",il\ ,VA I ubcon=or Wort CO=l:I> ,went: I ~ubcon=or Wort Completion: (AM) (AM) (PM) I J-OFAR 0c:IJ....-- Dma ~ + r Dlto I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d~) DVlRKA AND BARllLUCCI DATE: s-Iq 1'17 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Work perrormed today by subcomractorts) (includes equipment and labor breakdownJ: Ah )Uh>L"..,fn cffY.J' fTcb.'1 I DB-CFAA 1- Id~; I I I I I List specific inspec:tion(s) performed and resuilS (include problems and coaective actions,: I I I I List type and location of teslS peri'ormed and resuilS (include equipmcm used and monitoring results): I I I I I , I ?repareci by: I )B-DFAIl OVIAJ<A AND 8Aff11LUCCI DATE: r:;/q, /17 DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT General wort peri'ormed today by D&B: ()\j'! (C;~ ~ sf f; r _f,~ I c1 .cc.. M ~ ,-Lt .-4 h nfl..~. (~ r>.fV( (',t -h ) , ~,le I",n\ (^, 1.r~rr,( O^ {v~J..<:L ,,,," ~k.lt...t"i'(,.^ . v.. ) J it. -k... N4 tf,'r ~",hl(11 ~r ? "I t.\-.~ j.l "" ~,~, fL. v"f<<1' 'rvl r .......k.,/..,b k c,4.J ,...u-cr .J 7 I P .......Hr, . 1. L.fl J Verbal commenlS rea:ived from subcontraCtor (include CODStJUction and testing problems. and ~mmendationsiresuitiDg aaion): Nfl 1JW ~ ' Reviewed by: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C LOCATION SKETCHES . J 468\a0528705.doc(ROJ) I . . I Jfl DVIRKA (;JlQ) ~~TlLuca I Project -F S \-..M~ r s. I Sample(s) Location(s) LOCATION SKETCH Sample Crew ~O b l"'Q. ; ~v;c...i..- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Location of sample points. wells. borings, etc.. with reference to tIu:ee pennanent reference points. Measure all distances. clearly label roads. wells and pennanent feamres. o p.:\Jt. <;(Q ~ J), ~ Vb"J f i . :{tt'" . l'<.,'" 0"" 3 \ s~t:o ( , I \ I '. \ - \ ! let)' i$-~ , / , / I , / I , ; 'I , ~ i (._4 ! ><U TP-!tf \, fl\)jrJD .....~, - ><' ~-" l.S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .JfLDVIRKA (Jl.Q) ::11LUCCI Project HS\u.(~ Ie;. 1 CI"Jhll Sample(s) Location(s) iP - \ 1 LOCATION SKETCH Sample Crew \). () b n\ ; ev;<:...'-. Sample(s) and/or Well Number(s) Location of sample points. wells. borings. etc., with reference to three permanent reference points. Measure all distances. clearly label roads. wells and pennanenr feamres. i , \ ~/ ~ 1'IP-1Y:/:/ ~1,~~ ~ / // ~~\ ~ /Sf ~,~,~ ~ J{ I -{ '. I 'if-. ~ I ~ I . ~ c-l ~ "-- o / \ \ LS c-~ ~ I , I I .J/l DVIRKA tJLQ) =m.VCCI I I Sample(s) Location(s) I Sample(s) anellor Well Nwnber(s) Ii I Location of sample points, wells. borings. etc., with reference to three permanent reference points. Meuure all distances. c1eirly label roads. wells and permanent fealUreS. I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCA nON SKETCH Project \=\ sl&(l; Is. i O("J,hll TP -l8' Sample Crew n, Dbr'll;ev;<",~ o )( ?' ~ \1'-(, \ ,It ry.:l. Io~ ,v_ 1,'101"1' - \ i , , 1~ :~ lir / / 'I. P-l if', ~ __::"J1C \00' f,t ! i "t c..\\t\/ ~ l.S I ..Jfl OVIRKA ~LQ) ~m.UCCI LOCATION SKETCH I Project -P')~....; I~. tcr"Jh'lI SampieCrew D. Oht'"Q.J~\f;ct... I Sample(s) LocaUon(s) Tr-\,o' 1J'-d-.O ,T1'-.2..\ I TP-'l'L,' Tf-2)o' 1P-2...Y ~Tl'-2-S I Sample(s) and/or Well Number(s) I I Location of sample polms. wells. borings. etc.. wirh reference to duee permanent reference points. Measure :ill disW1CCS. clearly hlbel roads. wells and permanent feamres. I I 0 I I I I ~/)\JI\jD P-B I I I I I I LS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D AIR MONITORING FORM .1468\a0528705.doc(ROI) I I .J/lO' ~V:U (JlQJ UJl11LUCCI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AMP AJIl MONITORING FORM PROJEcr~lAME: t:,S-\....t(S. 1:~\~.-J LCl~<h.lI PROJEcr~"TJMBE1l: .-14-, i-11 RECORDED BY: D. D bv-ca J ()viL."'- WU'IHEll CONDmcNS: 5<< ~(tl fb '"""'5' OAm) ~,s /~1- (;/9 !q7 INn1tJMEHI': ~D (. c~blL S' C" I1IhT1ONDATE: sf.; - >/'1 Jq7 , DlI.tc. 1,-. W8'ID Sl'IID Pj, () '? teL - AND I. '":_. VA sJ~ I TP-I - O-IS () !l~,. ",.sk ",1e. I i - () 0 r... bz.. ( q.... ~/c...f ) I f~.1.. I - lo...'u D I 0 II.... WA r k Pile I l I - 0 0 :C" h- ((L....J.,~,,1) I n-, - O-Ll,t ,.., nvU' wuk "k. I J. - 0 (;> ,r", b2. ( ..". ",'utf ) ~ , I A-11 1~".A4-l'o"~ - I - 5" 7 I - 5/'1 I - 5/'1 I , 1/ - ~ \ I, I , ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lU!CORDINQP1l~~II"". h - b~#.'~r 2~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .14681a0528705.doc(ROI) APPENDIX E DAILY EQUIPMENT CALmRATION LOG l.-IIloVIRD .QLQ) ~~m.UCCI DAlLY EQUlPMENT CALIBRATION LOG l?rojl:Cf Name: _t:;S'Ivr~ 'J:S. La",J-ii II Date: sib /'(7 - Ii> 1.;:.117 'rojl:ct Number: I % ~ _!; Calibra=i By: "D. m. ~ WI c.t... I tnsmzmem Name Calibration I and Modei Numtler Medlocl llJlle If .-1"'1-'" and Observlliaas I ~Qskc.t-. .(;i-I.{OJ.. '0 LEI.. ~" Ln(M&~) I 1- I cil:l.fo ,,- "e I ~ f"/" q'flf~f~1 I I _ I I/.L . Mt ... '. ffL-'U)/lO 7iifE. ,. : I I I ,.~ /<<> 1114 IYtJ#1l.lft- - I ~ 'A ").DO'l>. -,- I T I ""./-u,1. GT - '" OJ.. r.3JJ 7. u:. L L ;. I fl' t .1/?.. I) "jC. Ii ~hsvlJ.l. Mnp I/DD u_ -'l.(,f.,fvlt,~ I .f'P I II() II.. I( I -. I I r.,,,<:/el'j. C':rr-'i4z... 1,1.1'7..... t...:'l. I P'" 1J 2.. ~...~ T J'i ' I"tTlP 1 / (J7 ..- .lr. If'" ,11~ ;fl'o / C> A- 1\ ! I , , J i Gff$kd... 1:7.'10).. - . ;..a'll) i rL. I .,,,., ). / 7. ~h~d. -p~vo" /of 'Ii f I /00 ..._ 1:;#. I'l> (44 / tJ J6 I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y I I I I I I I I I Dl!C. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1468\a05Z8705.doc(ROI) APPENDIX F FP & M SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1.1.2) ------------------- ... ..'''' ..,.t. " ............ I lLC.\I M "d lid .....J , tl[ 141 ............ ............ . .. IJlltt:M I."NO Ot j'WKl!l ,. "- " '............ I-' I '" 0:;..-:---- .. - 't ,>utO / ------ ,.(7:- . J \\ ,. ~,~, ,.--- / "": ---'- -......:. \, ;.~::::=:::: - '." \ - ~ ' -' ---- ,','- \ - \ -'""\.-==-- .~"~ '<:___ " ,_:--.~O. ~ ,""'... "'M~' -. '\ "--..... .......... '., ,. ).~ \ I ) '\., 'j'R(.AO ANa . S ~~A llMII~ or ............... ......... '0. b~ I l' /\ ~ C \',(R WASIl: '\ woomo ~[A ............ ..-- SIAHDlNG ' !I) /(2) I I '.72 ~hl ,,"fA \ IO~ '\ ( ~... --------r - WAIEft HEv 28 80uIOtR I , ~'\\''\ ,"-- l ' ___ ~.,. - JO "" '0/ /'1'" )\\ \ ' -\ ,I, _.-,- --- --- nt, rtR~O !:w ~~6 ................/ ,/ / (!J / I~I I . --- '~1---- _ I HYDRAN' ,....... I....... , I I I l[ASlO Alto. ~ \ I (." "I ,I 1 I ( 10 ACRES t ":t""",,,,-- - -.. ,\. >~,..r~,~',., !" l I / ' " ~ . ~~-, -t,. 1" ", I ;/ ~POl 971 -~' _,~,... (,...... ... /' / . , !,'H \," ......,:-..."....... ..............l If ." , / \ ~./ ie',,"E .. to t. "1 (I..J /~',' (~''''. / / /. "/ :l.o'1 . 726 Sf ANDING t ~ ~ (.II ~7 // _~ \ ( ~~R_6e'" /. '0.< '"-~,~...-:4/~'(;.I'nOM~(\...14j \ / POlE 97 ~ ....... ""'(lOt r Q74 ' / __ ~PUl' , IESl 'NtH III ((1I15I1NC;) '. ~ -.............. - lOP Of PIP{ ,.- ::--..!... ')'>0 .:'/ El.fV- 1111 -~!!J'l - I ::::--. '-::::--.1 ~ '., ~ HO 2.Cl,.4V PIPE H W - 961 It'- 11.29 '6 '. ~ BE~ frWL sa tH POL( '1.2 o.fV.. 1).1' \ APPROX. SCALE (In ._t): ~ o 50 100 I 200 I 300 SOURCE: A.R. LOMBARDI ASSOCIATES. INC. Fanning, Phillips & Molnar En Ineer. FIGURE 1.1.2 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF LANDFILL CELLS AT THE PICKETT LANDFILL FISHERS ISLAND. NEW YORK o.e_ By: JP5 ChKk8d By: PP De..: 10' 5 -'12 LEGEND: JUU \roo,,', I. till'.' "~I . ~..etH ,~ . Oultl(l . "1111'1. r-----:-----, I ~ I J . L_____.:._____J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS . 1468\F031 0804.DOC W.O. 2114.01 FILE 6\211401.COV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: DVIRKA AND BARTl LUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 CROSSWAYS PARK DRIVE WOODBURY, NEW YORK 11797.2015 PREPARED BY: TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.C. 615 ROUTE 32, P.O. BOX 447 HIGHLAND MILLS, N.Y. 10930 I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC :NGINEE.~:NG :CNSUlT,:,'1TS pc 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, a slope stability analysis was performed for the proposed landfill closure at Fishers Island, New York. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the stability of the final proposed closure slopes for the Fishers Island Landfill (also known as the Pickett Landfill) project. This report presents our findings and recommendations for the design of the landfill closure slopes, As part of our analyses, we have reviewed the "Draft Closure Investigation Report for the Pickett Landfill, Fishers Island, New York", dated March, 1997 prepared for the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District by Fanning, Phillips and Molnar. We also reviewed a report titled "Fishers Island Landfill Test Pit Program, Fishers Island, New York", dated June,1997 prepared for Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The specific scope of our services for the proposed Fishers Island landfill closure includes: . Review of the proposed landfill closure design drawings and previous reports that were provided by the client . Compilation and geotechnical engineering analysis of the subsurface conditions as they relate to the slope stability analysis of the proposed landfill closure slopes. . Performing slope stability analysis for two geometric cross-sections using the computer program PCSTABL 5M. Cross-sections were analyzed for overall slope stability considering both static and seismic loading conditions. The veneer stability of the landfill side slope was also analyzed. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC fNG'NEE.'i1NG CON$lJLT..w;SPC . Preparation of this report presenting the results of our slope stability analysis, as well as the conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the landfill closure slopes. 3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The landfill is located on Fishers Island, New York. Fishers Island is about seventeen miles east of the north fork of Long Island and four miles south of the Connecticut shoreline. The landfill site is an approximately 10 acre property bounded by Oriental Avenue on the north and Ferry Road on the south. The eastern and western sides of the landfill are adjoined by marsh/wetlands. The site is located approximately 0.6 mile east of the intersection of Ferry Road and Oriental Avenue. The proposed landfill layout is shown in Figure 1. Based on our background review, the Fishers Island landfill was in operation from the early 1950s until its closure in 1991. The present landfill setting consists of a spread and cover waste fill area to the north and east of the main landfill area. The main landfill area is designated the upland area and is approximately 5.5 acres. The upland area was reportedly trenched and filled with landfill material. The spread and cover area was reported to be the original portion of the landfill and no materials have been deposited in this area since the late 1960s. The elevation of the landfill averages about 30 feet above mean sea level and is approximately 15 to 20 feet above the surrounding grade. The existing surface of the landfill is predominantly covered with vegetation. No landfilled refuse is exposed at the surface. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TeCTONIC EiVGlNE:j:!lIvG CQrJ$Ulr.wTSPC 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING The geologic and hydrogeologic conditions were previously described in the March 1997 draft closure investigation report by Fanning, Phillips and Molnar and are summarized as follows: . Fishers Island is generally underlain by unconsolidated Upper Cretaceous- aged and younger deposits. These deposits overlie Precambrian bedrock which is present at an estimated depth of approximately 350 feet beneath the landfill. The Upper Cretaceous-aged deposits include unconsolidated sands, silts and clays. . The Upper Cretaceous-aged deposits are overlain by post-Cretaceous and Pleistocene-aged deposits consisting primarily of glaciofluvial. sediments. There is evidence which suggests that discontinuous clay lenses of limited aerial extent may exist within these deposits; however, there is no evidence that a clay layer exists beneath the landfill. . Groundwater at Fishers Island accumulates above the bedrock in the unconsolidated Pleistocene and Upper Cretaceous-aged sediments. The Upper Glacial Aquifer is associated with the Pleistocene deposits and the Magothy Aquifer is associated with the Upper Cretaceous deposits. The water table elevation at the landfill is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It is estimated that the depth to groundwater at the landfill ranges from zero feet in the wetlands to 20 feet below grade in the central portion of the landfill area. 5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The subsurface investigation for this study consisted of 5 test borings performed by NEBC on July 23 and 24, 1998. The borings were inspected and logged by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers. The boring locations were selected by Tectonic and represent an abbreviated program to supplement previous borings and test pits performed at the site. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC ENGiNEEi'lINQ CCNSULrAATS pc The borings were drilled to depths ranging between 21 and 38 feet using 4-1/4 inch internal diameter hollow-stem augers through soil. An NX diamond bit core barrel was used at one location to penetrate through a boulder. Split-spoon sampling and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) were performed continuously to depths of at least 12 feet and intervals not exceeding 5 feet thereafter. Groundwater observations were made during the course of drilling. The groundwater level data is presented on the boring logs. The locations of the borings used for this evaluation are shown on attached Figure 1. The logs of the borings performed for this phase of work are included in Appendix I. 6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on information provided in the Draft Closure Investigation Report, the Fishers Island Landfill Test Pit Log Program Report, and the recent boring data, the relevant subsurface data is summarized below. 6.1 Waste and Refuse Materials The present landfill setting consists of an upland trenched area and a spread and cover waste fill area to the north and east of the upland area. The. waste materials are primarily concentrated in trenches throughout the upland area, and typically consists of household waste contained in plastic bags. Based on the test pits data, the general thickness of waste mass in the main (upland) area is approximately 6 to 7 feet with a cover thickness of about 1 to 2 feet. The average depth of waste is approximately 8 feet below grade. In the area of the waste-filled trenches, the thickness of landfill material approaches 11 feet, with a maximum thickness of 17 feet identified at one test pit location. The thickness of waste in the spread and cover area north of the upland landfill area is estimated to be up 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC ENGINEE~ING CONSu'U'ANTS p,c. to 8 feet. Based on our conversations with representatives of Dvirka and Bartilucci. the depth of waste fill in the main (upland) area may be up to 20 feel. 6.2 Native Materials The subsurface soils vary from glacial materials at the northern portion of the site to wetland materials at the eastern. southern and western portions of the landfill. The glacial materials were encountered up to depths of 20 feet and are generally light brown sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt. The wetland materials are generally dark brown and black silt and organic materials. Organic peat was encountered in borings B-2 and B-2A between depths of 17 and 24 feet below the ground surface. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the five borings; however, a boulder appears to have been encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 23.5 feet. 6.3 Groundwater As part of the hydrogeologic investigation for the 1993 Draft Closure Investigation Report. seven monitoring wells and three piezometers were installed for the sampling and observation of groundwater. The groundwater levels measured at the above mentioned locations indicate that the groundwater flows generally from northwest to southeast. On August 23, 1993. the highest groundwater table was observed at 9.51 feet above MSL at monitoring well W-4. and the lowest groundwater le'fel was measured at 5.15 feet above MSL in monitoring well W-1. It should be noted that the groundwater levels will fluctuate with rainfall and seasonal weather conditions. Zones of perched water at higher elevations should be expected following extended periods of rainfall. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC E'iGJNEE~ING CJNSULj,J.vrs p c. 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Based on our review of the Final Closure Plans prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers dated April 1998, the following was considered for the slope stability analyses. The closure of the Fisher Island Landfill will include subgrade preparation of the existing landfill surface and construction of the final landfill cap. Our review of the grading plans indicates that relatively minor cuts and fills will be associated with the subgrade preparation. Fills generally on the order of 1 to 2 feet are planned over the majority of the landfill as part of the subgrade preparation. Fill heights will be up to 3 to 4 feet in some isolated areas. After the subgrade has been graded, it is our understanding that the final landfill cap will be constructed. The cap will be constructed in the main"(upland) area of the landfill and will consist of 6 to 12 inches of general fill overlain in turn by a geotextile, a 6 inch thick sand gas venting layer, a 60 mil HOPE geomembrane, an optional geocomposite, a 12 inch thick barrier protection layer, and a 6 inch thick vegetative grow1h medium. The total thickness of the final cap will be approximately 2.0 feet. The high point of the landfill after the final cap is constructed will be in the southeast/central portion of the site with slopes descending toward the south, east, and north as indicated on Figure 1. The landfill final cap slopes will descend from a high elevation of 31.5 feet to an elevation of approximately 14 feet at the base of the landfill. The upper approximately 8 feet of slope gently descends at an inclination of 4 percent, whereas the bottom 6 to 10 feet of slope becomes steeper at inclinations up to 33 percent. The total height ofthe final landfill slope is up to 17.5 feet. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P C 8.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Based on the Final Closure Plans two geometric cross-sections designated as profile A- A' and profile C-C' were analyzed for overall slope stability. Profile B-B' was also provided by the client; however, this profile has a flatter slope than profiles A-A' and C- C', and therefore, was not considered to be a critical cross-section. The locations of the cross sections are indicated on Figure 1. The geometry of profiles A-A' and C-C' are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Slope stability analyses were performed by the Simplified Bishop Method utilizing the PCSTABL 5M computer program. Failure surfaces along the cross sections were generated using the .CIRCLE" searching algorithm and 'SURFAC" for both static and pseudo-static (seismic) conditions. Iterations using these subroutines yielded the critical failure surfaces for the subject slopes. 8.1 Shear Strength Parameters Shear strength parameters used in our analyses were based on the subsurface exploration, laboratory test results on similar materials, and professional judgment. A summary of the shear strength data is presented in the following table: SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS MOIST SATURATED FRICTION SLOPE UNIT WEIGHT UNIT WEIGHT ANGLE COHESION MATERIAL (pet) (pet) (degrees) (pst) Landfill Cap Soils 105 115 32 0 Landfill Solid Waste Materials 65 75 20 200 Wetland Materials 65 75 20 200 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC ~"JGINE=~INC. CCNSUl..i~JTS pc 8.2 Slope Stability Design Considerations The slopes were analyzed to evaluate the static slope stability, the effect of the design seismic effect on the gross stability of the subject slopes, and the surficial stability of the landfill cap material and underlying waste. The pseudo-static subroutine of the PCSTBL 5M program and a coefficient of horizontal acceleration of 0.10g were used in our analyses. The 0.10g horizontal ground acceleration was obtained from the BOCA National Building Code. The design is based on a static factor of safety of 1.5 and a pseudo-static factor of safety of 1.1 and the assumption that the slope configuration will be as indicated on Figure 1 and Cross Sections A-A' and C-C'. The following table summarizes the results of the static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses. In addition, plots of our slope stability analyses are provided in Appendix II. SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES . CALCULATED CALCULATED MINIMUM PSEUDO- MINIMUM STATIC STATIC FACTOR OF CROSS SECTION DESIGN CONDITION FACTOR OF SAFETY SAFETY A-A' Eastem landfill slope 2.4 1.4 Northem landfill C-C' slope 2.2 1.6 8.3 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis To facilitate the veneer slope stability analysis for the surficial stability of the landfill cap, a typical profile as shown in Figure 4 was utilized. This profile is based on the Final Closure Plans. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TeCTONIC :,'JGINEEf/I,'IG CCNSI..U ;,.WS p C The interface between geomembrane and landfill cap was considered to be the critical potential slip surface. For the purpose of our analyses, water was assumed to be 3 inches above the geomembrane at the top of the slope and increase to the total depth of the cap at the base of the slope. The slope was assumed to be inclined at 33 percent. The veneer slope stability analysis yielded a factor of safety of 1.6 under static loading conditions, and a factor of safety of 1.2 under seismic loading conditions. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our background review and slope stability analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed construction of the landfill closure slopes is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our slope stability analyses indicates that adequate factors of safety were obtained for the static gross slope stability condition, for the pseudo-static (seismic) condition, and for potential surficial failures through the landfill cap materials. The scope of our evaluation does not include detailed recommendations regarding earthwork and grading activities; however, we recommend that caution be given during construction of the landfill cap since large equipment loads applied during construction may result in a localized failure of the slope, especially along the interface between the landfill cap soils and geomembrane. We further recommend that adequate drainage be designed into the landfill cap in order to prevent the development of a fully saturated conditions within the cap soil layer. 10.0 LIMITATIONS Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers 9 . II . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TECTONIC :!\"~:':;::"G C='.';h.~"'rs;>.: and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data is based on good judgment and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot always be predicted between the points of actual sampling and testing. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers for the specific application to the proposed landfill closure located on Fishers Island, New York. In the event that any changes in the design of the proposed landfill closure are planned or additional subsurface or laboratory test data inconsistent with that presented in this report becoming available, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed and verified in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants P.C. File FX\2114_01 reportdoc 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i It N 'f.. ". ..: . '" -., '. ~ ~.o . ". ...... --- ~- -.... . " . -'~>'..:. <" . ...... .'..... ", ....... , ...., l f , I "91 'J \', ... '.01(' ..... '. . \ \ '.~. .., ... ~., .\\.... , ".\ \ ~ "" -'~ ' , 0: '. ~'0.... ..... ". '-., '>- ...~.~:~..::::..._-, -\10:, .. .... ":..", l . / tf / ! i \ ~ .. . ( .. \ , -- ./ ... ... CJ. 0, j .. I .. ... L"; ()- :, .' ... .. LEGEND C c' L~ . B-3 APPROXIMATE LOCAll0N OF CROSS SECll0NS APPROXIMA TE LOCA 110N OF BORING BY DVlRKA & BARllLUCCI CONSUL llNG ENGINEERS NOTE: THIS PLAN WAS CREATED BASED ON A "KEY PLAN" BY DVlRKA & BARllLUCCI CONSUL llNG ENGINEERS DATED APRIL. 199B. TECTONIC P.O. Bole 447, 1515 Rout. 32 Hi9hlond Willi, N.Y. 10830 CNGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. (814) 028-8531 PLAN FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FISHERS ISLAND LONG ISLAND, NY Dote 7/10/18 ..... 1.~ 80" w... """" 2114.01 Dr'awin9 No. ... FIGURE 1 o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . , , " . . " {~.' -' " , , '. ' . .. .. '. . . . " , ' .' 30t- ;.. ' . , .. FlNAL CA ~ I , , .. . .. . . / 30. " J. "'\.' .JI' - -_._._.~_I -~.--"'-.. , .............. / SUBG~ 1='. L- I "'\. .~ ..... ,--... .......... / / I ... ,I 1 '/ , -- 100..' . ..... ," . --....z. .,~, EXISTING GRADE "-' 7 ~ , .' ...... " / V --- I- ---...:.......:. "~ _...,- ~...... "'~ >.;:../' , 25 I , , , "'.--_. ---- '. .. ,......l v...........' .' , 25 .' APPROgij V '. ' .. .. :-:---- ~ ' -.. ~ , ......... 100.. ATE TOP .. -- . .. , - ,...--.................. X ..QE.. , . " l>"...'- ---1 " '" '\ , . , , V " \ I , I 20 . .' , .. ", ,\,' . , 20 r , , . . ,'\, .~. " " . ", . . ". .. . . , , .. , .. . , ., .. , . ~~ (, , , .. . , \ "- .. . .' " . , , 1 5 '. \. " , 1 5 . , . '. . \, ":'l. .. .. , .. . '. , '. ,'. \ " .. '. , ,-.: :> \ .. '.." , . .., , '. .' :'.' .' 'i .' 10 , , . , .' .. I 1 0 0+00 0+50' 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 , 2+50,: 3+00 3+50; 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 , .' , '. ,. '.: ." . . 'PROfILE A~A" HORIZONTAi.. scAlE: .1-"'50'" VERl1CAL. 'SCAlE:" 1- :.oS' NOTE: THIS PLAN WAS CREATED BASED ON A PLAN & PROFILES BY OYlRKA & BARTlLUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATED APRIL, 199B, TECTONIC eNGINeERING CONSULTANTS P.C. P.O. Soa 447. 61S Rout. 32 Hi9htond Iotille. N.Y. lOSt30 (914) V2S-5a31 PROFILE A-A' FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FISHERS ISLAND LONG ISLAND, NY Oat. .....ork Order 7/10/'. Soo~ 2114.01 AS .OTED Drawing No. fUN' FIGURE 2 0 I II II II II II I, II II II I .1 I . . I . I . . ,. '. . . . ; . .' - .. 30 . J3J JiM. ./ -... FINAl CAP 30 /' "" --- ....... , ./ . . -- ... ..... . . " , \. ~ #.," ....... ................ / . '/ '.SUI ~ . .. .'\. ./ ... ,...-...... ...... ./ . .' ..... ~ / ' . .. .. '. , ./ "'" .... ,. ""'\ ........ ""-L ./ ~EXl ;TING GB@..E '". .' " .. ... , 25 / ,- ~ --~. '. -- ,'. ....... ,,/ ./ . 25 , . , '- ",,",' '.. " .. , , , ./ b --- : '.... ... 7'0... / "'-APF ROXIMATE, OP OF W. Sfr . .... . . .... ',' '. .'~.. :~ ./ ..... . ~ .. , .... .. '~",' '. .... '- .' ' I.. . '. - . -: --- -----L ~... ,\ . . . .. " 20 ! . , .\ .\ ~...\ . 20 , . . ., . i U'\\ .' .- ' . T. .' !'.' '" . .. I'" ./ ,. . .' . ".:\ \ . . . . . . './ '.' , A .. " 15 ,/ 1.:- '\ \ 15 . . 1. -c- , \, .\'. : o . I /- , " . . ............, . . -/: .' ~ I . . .. '. . "":-- ~... . . . , - I ---- . . . . . 101 I , . ...:..... , . 10 0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50. 3+00 3+50, . 4+00 4+50 '5+00 5+50 6+00 ,J' . t>' . PROFILE C--C. HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1-",50' VER1lCAL' SCALE: . 1-..5. . . NOTE: THIS PLAN WAS CREATED BASED ON A PLAN & PROFILES BY DVlRKA & BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATED APRIL. 1998, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. P.O. 80w "'+7. 615 Ao~ 32 l-f'9hland M,lIs, N.Y. 105130 (V14) Q28-6531 PROFILE C-C' FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL FISHERS ISLAND LONG ISLAND, NY Data Wof1t Order 7/'0/'8 ..... 2114.01 AS NOTED Drowinq No. Rev FIGURE 3 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 4 I I . I I I I I I I I I I '" I I <0 I I I I I I SAND GAS VENlllNG LAYER BARRIER PRDTECllON LA VEGETAllON \ ".",'" om,"" "" ~ GENERAL FILL LAYER !~?TONIC ENGINEERING H..hra.d Mill; 01. Raul" 32 CONSULTANTS . N.Y. 10930 P.C. TYPICAL <".) .2.-0.., CAP CROSS SECTION FISHERS ISLAND FISHERS IS~DFIU. LONG ISLAND D , NY - 7/10/_ Scor. NTS .oR "... ............ ... FIGURE 4 2114.01 o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX I I I. I I I I I I tiJ I I I z'o I I I 30 I I I I I .. Onlle..: Ned,. S,6-r..~s 1M. .Alu,J Dvirka and bCirtilucci Boring Log ~oring 10 : ~ InS;lector: ~ $h&.. I . Project Name: hSW :u6...J tJ. S_ ....L.or-1- Rig Type: "',lnk. 8111- 47Y Project .~ 11/6s Location: LJe5t If Drilling Method: ~~(~~ ,NKCi>.e Boring Depth: U.!i' boP.._ rJI,J OrO'':"=''\''I:e.Otu:-ntlOns Sll~ 10,Ie & IIITlI): ~'~$."f1. tyt;:/~ Location Sketch: Ca:e Finish (Olte & lme): :; -i-i4fj, /t :,0 Ti~, Weathft: M .a.....!y ~~-'f(y~ 0-" . .. Cu''''9:C~.a' :>!=~... Etr.'1bOn of Ground Surllce: 15im;'le Samplp. FJeld Description Well Schematic I Commen:s Inler...al No 5PT tv n-2.0 55>-/ 17-'1 J Y'1.;JI, 6(..,~ f s"..J, f,-..ee ~,'II, (J.et-: I,>' ~-5 z.-'f.O Ss-z. r-.6 IZ- 1'1.;, /, ~...,.,^ {s......J., -In..., So- 'f.f . ~: ,.S" b-b , tJ_t..{) 1 "'<:.2 5-{. 13 /Y1~'s?, ~r~n f S...J, I:~ s:l/ ,,/ .., ../0 'i: Rcc: /.,' =F~ f...,.1 tA..r~. I. -'i?nl ~5-'/ a.'i /3 ('f1I'\ ~ (. Of!t'W" (s......J ..hit dl ~c, ~.o' I...' wi "i..d~. ' . . ., a.tO.D' ss-> "?>I /1 rt..."s~, ~.., .{ s.......J, .f.."..... ~lf. ,~ Ra,':. :J.o' :+.? 11I/ 16o<f~'0' ~ ID-IZ.O' -:>"s., ? /3 w.) j,rn,>" r <;.....j/~. s,ll- ~: 1,1./ ' J.. l,J/J("""J""'~' ~ \l } IS: i,.If., '~.""J ,., .r;. 0 ,J.S-? f!-IO Z~ wdl ~w'n r t-t t,';ftt. ~111. I -~ ".......11, f?e.c "- /S' 12 -10 - \8.0 . ~ n,!";(.l'J~ r..(,~1 ------ - - - ' ------.- ~ lito...: ~..." .r. ZO-t.2.0' <;5.3 /.f-4 ~ wJ.} b ((I",.. rr-.( s-J, !.iIt..., ~ ~ PU_'" 7..0' If.> .f"'e-t r ~ ,..d, -I"'l~ (. j ~.II x: 23.5' "I( 13,'.21.5 f"-( - - G:"'- a':....-,~l. i":-t~: - - . .. . - - V R"c.: 2.3' ~ ((Qn: 8~ 8,,,./1, = z,.~. I I I S~ll S::"2:~ra:t'y SUft':I""\I"Y - .'~'.~".'1'~ U:~:"';.. J " I I I I I I I 1,0 I I IVD I I I ~O I I I I I Drille..: Nfec, ~,G-r...vf5IM.")u/ - Dvirka and Bartilucci S...ring Log .Boring 10 : B -/"1 ':1SpeClor: D. $ f..J.1 Project Name: ,c;g~ IS4.. j Lr. SIlooIL.,_L Rig Type: (f}o/"i~ 81(1 fi-,.v Project 1J: ILl!,/? Loation: 15'SE Drilling Method: V~ ";J H$I/J Boring Depth: Zo.5"' df 8-1 Groi.:I"I:,\"'1:.. Ot'tr:"'ntIOnS Sll~ (Oalo & Time): '1-z'f'~f/IJ:oo Location Sketch: CI:e FinisIl(Ollo' r-l: 7-z.'f.9SII'f:"~ Ti~1 We':l'Ief: .5'.m 9/Jo,c JJ /.~ - 0-" ... cu;~:c~a' ~~;~., Ele...-atlOn of Ground Surf.ct: Sample Sample FJeld Description Well Schematic I Commen:s Interval No SPT '" I !/g 5pwn 54-f"'''d () -.20.",' " . # .~ 'f' 10 f. ~ ~ )- lr., ltc...-es ,~ &'..11<<, r;f I?... ~ ~ ~1t u.&AI - I.... - ;,..::-. c..1J{.$ :.... ~,;.d( -tiv/J;f3- ~ "" .i~r, 2o.~. , 7 t-r.o -Jp-!) ~ /3.0.6. -= ';2(),S' ~ . I . I . S:)il St-;::;I'3:"'Y Surr:l""\a"y - . . ~',: ~- . 1'~ .~:! -:',:: . I -. I I I I I I I I to I I I z~ I I I I 10 I I I I Dnlle..: ~8C. S,Gn...,q I H. Wt..) Dvirka and Bartilucci Boring Los" ~oring 10: [3-2- ''lspector:--P,sl<<.J.,' - Project Name: (;3Aen u.1:.,.J L.F. s-..LoI_L Rig Type: ftfnf,,'/t e l./~ Ani Project #: 11./'8 location: IJ6 "J, <: Drilling MelllOd: I.{VII.,'J. H~S Boring Depth: 2/,0' .J "e{,.Ie GrOi.:":,wa:.. Ot'st~lIhonS SlaII(OII.& Tome): ~.>t. / ";Ml Location Sketch: i:J:1 Finish (OIl. & Tome): 1.v' .'l~/ 1'(-:10 Ti-':I WI.~~: o-a..s! 8 r;- -90";: 0-.' 0 . .. c.s;~:c:a' ~t:=~" ElevatIOn of Ground Surface: I Simple Sample rJeld DesCliplion Well Scl1emalic Commen:s Inlerval No SP'f N ("J-t.O ' Sf-I I 5-S? I'! P"1,6"'",,, 4- 54"'!, -ff-,.';' c -", 5"""', (le Co ~ I.'-{' /1-13 {~.~ _8~A~.!. !,.,,~ _ '~-/~.__ .5'!' S~-2 i..;.4DJ_ 2,11.0 5S.2 11f-=1 /I tr7~ JArt'it;: ('''/-1 -tr.,;( i-,.. , Rec: {).2' !of-!> $ fro"e "e f,"S ,,-, ~ ~_"..o ' <;5-] S -, '1 IrMs.~ J.r~ a..~ tA^J/,~ /.1-1 ~/ .~ ~S--3, .Jote F<a : O.j,' S-l.{ f''''{'-'' fr^" s. w..+- ,,, +'f ~~ ~;b''!. (., 'ff-O' <:'5-'/ ,-/-:f 23 Ue.{, d..ri: ~4 -+ ~..^~ f.r4.Lt L__ ~ /(:(;: f).I' " -/7. S...:.J. wi ",...q... f:j_..h . \j~ $5-'1, .Jor 8.111.0 r ~s-r '-{-l. " \-'-!l WeA, j...., fJ<t,J1 {.'tfl-( {;If,,J/ .i~ Ss-!.- ~J", ~: IJ.Z' 4-~ r"Sf.. .; !I,; .(r-.~___~s. , to-ll.Il' SS.I, 4-, , ~, ,....., .(! 1...41 f-t'4,(tI S",'/l- .. J 5S-4 tJ/~... Ru< tJ.~' y_?. .! I~jfic.: _ _ _ _ _ IZ.<i ,~~ Iz..-/I/.O' 5S-':/ 1-/ "2- uM, 5.....y c-f s"i'~";c~ -r;~{ ~~ S~--:t, "dor ~<<-~ 0,1/' I-I 'lvl b",,~ .... ~f.-( r"S_A.) ~ 1r;--I7-.0' 5.5-8 '1-/ 2- wd, 5''7 .f .....J, I;~'l '" s.....J oJ/ \.J fS-g [..:...I.Jo.r R~: ",.r' 1-3 f~ J'.{t.~, _" ~(~s.f;'~ :f('~~~l!~: ' ~7 , 17-19.0' <<:4 2-2. '1 ~, brow" r<!...+' 5S-'j, /I. "j~ f? "Co : ".0' '2.-2 ~.j., b...., 1."....1-(1.0') _It u.le.+, b~ 1'1-:/.1.0 ' SS-IO 1'-1/ :n.. v ru.~'" 2.0' 11-9 ~'~~,,'vf W....t D.t'). A ~"Y ".f s...;J Seo.~ ~ . 'ollo'l- ZfJ.':1 ~ 0 8,(].8'" 2/.0 I I I I i S:)iI S:-a::gl'l:'F"y SUrP:I""\a"Y , . ~',: ... . I .~ ,..:! ":":;: : I I. I I I I I I {O I I. I "z-o I I I fo I I I I I Drille..: tJ~~,c, $".tm.v<tr / tt(. Ak~ Dvirka and Bartilucci Boring Log l3orin\:t 10 : D-2~ ''lSpeClor: .1>. slat./ Projed Name: t::J~rJ Lt:...J L.F- s_-L.or-L, Rig Type: ~t>~le 8'/ ~ IJTv Projed 1t: /t,t'3 lOQ\ion:/,'elle" Drilling Method; i'~ ",:1 J.lSII! Boring Depth: 3(1.0' #f' /!..z Gro=':"~"lI:e" Ot'u:'VIbons SIItt (Oil. & rlllll): 1'2.Y"l\/If)'D~ Location Sketch: i:'.:, FinisIl (Oat. & r.....): ~~].tI-9"l1..:1.S Ti'T:' Wllt/lI': tJ? SV""'J l!.rof: 0-" - ... Cas;"'l9;C~I' =>!;:~ Etr...bOn 0' Ground SUrfIC.: , Sarro;>le Samplp. FJeld DeScription Well Schematic I Commen:s Interval No 5pr N I f' ~' t ~~,( oJo,," , If-II.O' SS.I 3 -I Z. We-f, ~ ''';1 .( s.....l, ~1fk ,.lll,.",~ ~e(:: 0.3 1-2- .t; tt....'J wI fl.JA't I ",e i.. .. r.J..,J -~ 'l\o._i~. Cl'jet' f.t.~ ~ ~~ ~1'Wi,d t 111.,(' \3 ~ - ~ ~ Zo.Z2.o' $S-2- 1-0 /lid, b,h'I'" f~...f .f:i / , . " j:?~c ~ /." ' I' , ~~ 2%.-1'1.0' SS.! /-2. If /)/,,+, b/lfOl" f'u.4 j,..Ju ~ w<-I, ~~G: I.~' z-2. ~r."'" p~./., +0". s-.'l~. ~ Z'l.l6.D' .r~ - 'I / -I I IoIe.( b.....w.. S;U, ~""a ~...}. ~'-o /lee: I.S' () ~ I ~~ 21.-18.0 ' $S'S I-I 2- ;ve.t bf"",^, s:(~, +r...f fh-\' .. , ~ R~c: /.0' I~( I 30.,,' 3. -3z.0) SS" =1./2. '?o Wel,,,~ ~'ii, ~'-#-f-e..'" (O'J-')()~-~ Rec.: /.t. . ,8-/-:1 l.t.,.,~ s...l, +""t L_ sG.J., {....c. .( S....-e .]') . <2 .-g,/.o' SJ-~ 6'S /'I Wel, ~"7-lono""" ......-f s~~ +<-~,t ~ S...J f<ec.: I,Y' 9-9 frc..'''.{ ~........I/-I-,...c'~' . -, I ~oJ.3C.o' s<;-~ 1?,9 2.'- ~ '~'1 .(' 'T' L:tft.. ({I+, ~""( "h Rec: n.!I' 11-'1J S ,+r.... _. j.......L f~ .1'.0' ss-'1 11-13 1'2- .J~, ~'f1 t S...~ ......1 (;~ /-I...c t ~: I.J' 1't-2t:;" -.... S~, ~Cf (..."..~\. I ~,O.!.. -:. 31.0/ 5:)il S::-a::ilra:"'y Surr,1""\a"y - . . :' i,: ... . ~ 0':' ....:! ":":;: ::'. J I I. I I I I I I (r> I I I ,"0 I I I I 30 I I I I Onlle..: N~8C., S,~"~$ /A.u.k...! Ovirka and Bartilucci Boring Log ~oring 10 : 8~.3 , Projed Name:.J;~ L..J'f r~ t.....l L. F. ''lspector: T).~.f..f.. f s_ I 01 ., Rig Type: fI1Qc..../~ B'f~ A1V Projed .~ J'IU l-*c~ Drillin!; Method: '1,/" I. ~SA~ Boring Depth: 22.0' . ~# (, . G'O'':I'I:'\'''1~e'' Ot'U:"I'IIICnS SIan (Oal. & Tune): ~-21(.91t/()e~ Location Sketch: Cl:e FinisIl (011. & Tme): 7-iy-'1g/"9~Z~ Ti~1 Wl.lt~ ,.,. 00...J7 8p~'fC 0-" ... Cni"'19 :c:z' :J,;:~'"I EJeo,~t"'" 01 Goound SuoflCO: I Sample Sa~plp. Field Description Well Schematic I Commen:s Interval No Sf>r N 0-2,0' $5-1 I 2-'-/ 12. rrJ.;sI, &'ow" s;U ..~J f ~..J (o..,')(/II#lo a;:~.:t,l~ Rec: 0,8' 8~1I fIIoj,)I,,~-, f s...J. $_ ,:(t (0."'). 2-</.0' SS-2 S~'1 ~3 w..4, ~. .( s-J] ~._ $,'(.1 ~J Rec ~ c.9' 16-,9 ~ +,..1 sI""~I'''''j.. '(.0' ... ., . If'~'t. 1./-'.0' SS-? 8-(1( 30 J.l~ -b,~~ ~li:[ ~~ -.f~;";J ~~ I?~(.~ 0,1' 11.-10 'oJ/ ~ ~ ,.: +-r. " ~ L-S.o' .>S-l./ 10-"1 13 ~~ WeA, bm.... .....f:{.......l) (;1ft Co s:....J \l " Rc": (J.g' {,-$' 1-,....( ...-f ~,...(,f<c.Ct ,;(. . / 'N ~-IO.O' SS-s 2~-i IV 1'" ~"'7.f S.....J,-I-n..f c.-~,_J ~ I) ~s,r oj", Rec> ".~' 6-"3 ......t. ....-{ 0....orc.\,4f'o1.<.c s,'I.J.. / I 10.11..0' ss-1. f' -16 ;:;. WeJ. 5I<i-~ ....-f s...J r.'#!...es.~ "h~ R~, I.f' U-/~ +~-'~ ."":.-:f. J~~!,-!~L~ ~.;lt.._12~~ ) o,u.c.;.~ j,,,;J " " ~~ ~ ~ 12,O-IS,O. IS' -17.0' SS-=1 1/- ., UJ Wc,./.] ~~~ c.-..f s.....JII\'~"..=t ~~ I<cG< 1.0' " -Cf jo..~ 1 -fi"oo.,. ~ It. - ~'" on..,.t., 1'1,0 -2c.o'. II , Wt)., b""'-:)j ,J ~ ~ ",.1 ~ (, '20.220' SS-~ If)-I! z:~ Rec < 6.~' /2 -/'I ~.....;ej) -t.-..le s, 1+. - B.O.B '" 22.0' I I I I s~~ s::"I::~~="'Y Sun-::-,a-, - . . ~. : ,. . I'!, ...: !':":,, ::.. ~ ------------------- 599 Fishe~s Island LandCil1 C~oss Section A-A Stability Analysis Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH-AAX.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 98-95-98 19:48aM . FS Soi 1 1 2.36 No. 1 2 3.77 2 3 3.78 4 3.78 5 3.80 499 6 3.80 . 7 3.81 8 3.82 9 3.86 10 3.86 399 I- Y-Axis (cn 299 I- 199 r- 9 I 199 9 TotWt SatWt (pcf') (pcf') 105 110 65 75 , Phi Ru Pore Pi ez . (deg) Para... Press Surf'. 32 0 0 W1 20 0 0 W1 , C (psf' ) o 200 - - d 4~ 3 2 21. 3 .' ~ ~2--- -----Ja---------------------W1 - , , , 799 I 699 899 299 399 499 599 PCSTABL5M FSMin=2.36 X-Axis (Ct) ------------------- Fishe~s Island LandCills C~oss Section A~ Static, Deep Failu~e Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH-AA2.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 08-05-98 10:45aM 500 400 300 V-Axis (Ct> 290 100 o 9 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FS 3.76 3.76 3.78 3.80 3.80 3.83 3.83 3.86 3.86 3.86 Soi I No. 1 2 100 TotWt SatWt (pc~) (pc~) 105 110 65 75 C Phi (ps~) (deg) o 32 200 20 Ru Pore Pi ez . Para.. Press Sur~" o 0 W1 o 0 W1 200 300 400 500 PCSTABL5M FSMin=3.76 X-Axis (Ct) 609 700 809 ------~------------ Fishe~s Island Landrill C~oss Section A-A Pseudo-Static Shallow Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH-AAU.PLT B9: Tectonic Enginee~ing 9b-95-98 19:54aM 599 499 399 'i-Axis (t.t) 299 199 I' , . FS Soil Totlolt SaUlt C Phi Ru Pore Piez. 1 1.67 No. (pci') (pci') (psi' ) (deq) Para", Press Suri'. 1 105 110 0 32 0 0 W1 2 2.35 2 65 75 200 20 0 0 W1 3 2.36 4 2.37 5 2.39 6 2.39 . 7 2.39 8 2.41 9 2.42 10 2.43 - - . JJ Z. A'r2--- . -----....a.!.--------------------W1 - I- , . , , , , . 9 9 199 299 399 499 599 PCSTABL5M FS"in=1.67 X-Axis (tt) 699 799 899 ------~------~----- Fishe~s Island Landeill C~oss Section A~ Pseudo-Static, Deep Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH-AAW.PLT By: Tectonic~nginee~ing 98-95-98 19:52aM 599 499 399 'i-Axis (f't) 200 199 , 9 9 II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FS 1.35 1.35 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 Soil No. 1 2 109 TotWt SaUlt (pcI') (pcI') 105 110 65 75 C Phi (psI') (.leg) o 32 200 20 Ru Pore Pi ez . ParaM Press Surl'lI o 0 W1 o 0 W.1. .a _ ___..a__ - 209 399 499 599 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1.35 X-Axis (f't) 699 700 899 --------~-~-------- Fishe~s Island LandCil1 C~oss Section C_C Shallow Failu~e Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH_CCZ.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 08-05-98 10:39aM 280 240 200 Y-Axis (Ct) 160 120 80 40 o o II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 FS 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.17 Soil No. 1 2 40 TotWt SatWt (pcY) (pcY) 105 110 65 75 C (psY) o 200 Phi Ru Pore Piez. (deg) Para", Press SurYII 32 0 0 W1 20 0 0 W1 1~- 89 120 160 200 PCSTABL5M FSMin=2.16 240 280 X-Axis (Ct) 320 360 400 440 --------~-~------~- Fishe~sIsland LandCill C~oss Section C C Inte~Mediate Failu~e Ten Most ~~itical. C:FISH_CC~.PLT By: Tectonic~nginee~ing 98-95-98 ~9:36aM 289 249 299 Y-Axis (Cn ~69 ~29 89 49 9 9 . ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~O FS 2.20 3.28 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.3~ 3.3~ Soil No. ~ 2 49 Totlolt Satlolt (pci' > (pci' > ~05 ~~O 65 75 C (psi' > o 200 Phi Ru Pore Pi ez . (deg> Para... Press Suri'. 32 0 0 W~ 20 0 0 W~ 89 ~29 ~69 299 PCSTABL5M FSMin=2.29 249 289 X-Axis (Ct> 369 499 329 449 ---~------~-~------ Fishe~s Island LandCil1 C~oss Section C_C Pseudo-Static Shallow Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH_CCX.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 9b-9S-98 19:44aM 289 249 299 Y-Axis (Ct) 169 129 89 . FS 1 1.56 2 1.56 3 1.56 4 1.56 5 1.56 6 1.56 7 1.56 8 1.56 9 1.56 10 1.57 49 9 9 Soi 1 No. 1 2 49 Totlolt SaUlt (pcf') (pcf') 105 110 65 75 C Phi Ru Pore Piez. (psf') (deg) ParaM Press Surf'. o 32 0 0 W1 200 20 0 0 W1 1T 89 129 169 299 PCSTABLSM FSMin=1.S6 249 289 X-Axis (Ct) 369 499 329 449 -~-~--~------------ Fishe~s Island LandCil1 C~oss Section C C Pseudo-Static, Deep Ten Most C~itical. C:FISH_CCV.PLT By: Tectonic~nginee~ing 98-95-98 19:42aM 289 249 299 V-Axis (t.t) 169 129 89 I- 49 I- #I FS 1 1. 58 2 1. 80 3 1. 80 4 1. 80 5 1. .81. 6 1.82 7 1.83 8 1.83 9 1. .84 10 1. 85 8 8 Soil No. 1 2 49 TotWt SatWt (pcf') (pcf') 105 110 65 75 C Phi Ru Pore Pi ez . (psf') (deg) ParaM Press Surf'#I o 32 0 0, W1 200 20 0 0 W1 .y.; 7 8 '2 1/ I 2'",,;' /"-,~P/ W1"Th7'.. -2-2--~--~~'---- - - - ----- - - - ."..::~:'.'..;;~~l-lH "'II....,... .,.::......'1./.:-.... ',.'" ..' . .... . ~~~~~;~>... ...::::::::~~~;~:;;~~f,~~~~i~:.~.:..... ~...::::..:;.z;.::.~:.:~~:.....-.-...... ._............-;::::::.::::.::.:.~;~~:.:~!~~.;;..;:;:.:.~~.:..... ...~......_.. ..-........ .. .....-:;::::::...... .... .....,:Jf(~~~:~€:l~:~~~~~~::~:~........ . 89 . 329 , 499 , 368 . , 129 169 299 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1.58 249 289 X-Axis (Ct) . 448 -~-~~--------~--~-- Uenee~ Analysis - Static Loading SpeciCied Su~Cace. C:FISHAAU.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 08-05-98 10:57aM 40 Soi 1 No. 1 30 V-Axis (f't) 20 10 ------f--- 9 9 Totlolt Satlolt C Phi Ru Pore Piez. (pel') (pel') (psI') (deg) Paral"l Press Surl'. 105 110 0 32 0 0 1011 1 , ___ J _ _ __---- -..r 1.------- .. 1.9 29 PCSTABL5M FS=1..62 39 X-Axis (f't) 49 50 -~-------------~--- Uenee~ Analysis - SeisMic Loading SpeciCied Su~Cace. C:FISHAAT.PLT By: Tectonic Enginee~ing 98-95-98 19:58aM 49 Soil No. 1 39 V-Axis (Ct) 29 19 ------.(--- 9 9 Totlolt Satlolt C Phi Ru Pore Piez. (pcf' > (pcf' > (psf' > (deg> Para... Press Surf'. 105 110 0 32 0 0 1011 1 ._________u 1.----------- .. 19 29 PCSTABL5M FS=1.18 39 X-Axis (Ct> 49 59 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )> "C "C CD ~ Q. ><" o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C HELP MODEL RESULTS . I 468\FOJ I0804.DOC I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I I ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCOBER 1994) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I I 1 I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\FISHER.D4 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D7 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D13 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D11 C:\HELP3\FIL4NC12.D10 C:\HELP3\FIL4NC12.0UT I I I I TIME: 17:45 DATE: 10/16/1998 ****************************************************************************** TITLE: FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL,EVAP ZONE 12",4%SLOPE,NO GEOCOMPOSITE ******************************************************.********************+** I I I I I NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER 1 THICKNESS POROSITY TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 6 = 6.:0 INCHES = 0.~530 VOL/VOL I Page l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1900 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0850 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3780 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.720000011000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. LAYER 2 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4570 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1310 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0580 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.4570 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 4.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 200.0 FEET LAYER 3 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 0.06 INCHES 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL = 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 1.00 HOLES/ACRE 3.00 HOLES/ACRE 3 - GOOD = = = = = LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I Fi14ncl2. out POROSITY ~ FIELD CAPACITY ~ WILTING POINT ~ INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT ~ EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo ~ 0.4570 VOL !VOL 0.1310 VOL !VOL 0.0580 VOL !VOL 0.2120 VOL !VOL 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS ~ 6.00 INCHES POROSITY ~ 0.5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY ~ 0.2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT ~ 0.1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT ~ 0.3051 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo ~ 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 6 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS ~ 180.00 INCHES POROSITY ~ 0.6710 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY ~ 0.2920 VOL !VOL WILTING POINT ~ 0.0770 VOL !VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT ~ 0.2569 VOL !VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA ---------------------------------------- NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 6 WITH A FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 200. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER ~ FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF ~ AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE ~ 70.50 100.0 PERCENT 1. 000 ACRES Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I Fi14nc12.out SVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH 12.0 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 5.010 INCHES UPPER LIMIT OF SVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 5.460 INCHES LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.858 INCHES INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 57.088 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 57.088 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR SVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- NOTE: SVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00 START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 83 END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 2?6 AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12.00 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.00 % AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 % NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE. NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 35.20 78.30 32.60 78.50 42.20 69.80 49.50 55.30 63.10 44.80 69.00 32.00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02 1. 26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58 RUNOFF 0.567 0.000 3.335 1. 784 0.733 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.915 2.810 5.099 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 664 1. 655 2.723 3.101 3.500 6.131 1.666 3.582 2.422 3.097 1.817 1. 038 LATERAL 'DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.3581 0.2280 0.3686 0.2839 0.2498 0.1638 FROM LAYER 2 0.0986 0.0881 0.1324 0.3659 0.3685 0.4067 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.4529 0.3405 0.4603 0.3933 0.3743 0.2774 LAYER 3 0.1696 0.1509 0.2106 0.4584 0.4537 0.4871 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.5149 0.4586 0.4995 0.4784 0.4885 0.4644 LAYER 6 0.4690 0.4534 0.4222 0.4072 0.3824 0.3747 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 16.274 5.555 13.466 4.842 16.546 7.383 14.553 16.475 13.358 16.854 10.040 17.524 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.982 0.241 0.967 0.208 0.880 3.508 1. 761 1. 063 1. 665 1.172 2.099 0.336 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 Page 5 I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I Fi14ncl2. out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55.98 203207.344 100.00 RUNOFF 16.242 58957.832 29.01 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 32.397 117601.469 57.87 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 3.1124 11297.990 5.56 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4.229248 15352.169 7.55 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 12.7391 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 5.413152 19649.740 9.67 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.184 -4299.603 -2.12 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 57.874 210081.078 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 56.689 205781.469 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0..000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.087 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 9.61 1. 34 3.90 1. 76 7.65 1. 35 4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05 RUNOFF 7.213 0.833 0.830 0.000 1. 058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.657 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.075 1.494 1. 997 2.769 5.149 4.077 Page 6 I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out 4.227 4.095 3.248 2.468 1.063 0.750 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.3931 0.1226 0.1672 0.2401 0.2830 0.1572 FROM LAYER 2 0.0976 0.0994 0.0975 0.1037 0.0905 o . 2195 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.4776 0.1885 0.2572 0.3618 0.3962 0.2663 LAYER 3 0.1678 0.1711 0.1677 0.1786 0.1554 0.3293 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3450 0.3191 0.4116 0.3955 0.4034 0.3799 LAYER 6 0.4030 0.3911 0.3629 0.3610 0.3365 0.3399 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 17.176 5.484 7.027 5.614 8.886 13.348 14.165 9.598 5.696 5.899 5.210 11.641 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.677 0.227 3.781 0.693 4.579 1.117 2.265 2.406 0.271 0.462 0.573 3.381 ******************************************************************************* .****************************************************************************** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 3.117498 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 184549.234 100.00 45704.781 24.77 117654.500 63.75 7518.554 4.07 11316.518 6.13 INCHES PRECIPITATION 50.84 RUNOFF 12.591 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 32.412 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2.0712 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 9.1453 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 4.449034 16149.992 8.75 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.683 -2478.641 -1. 34 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 56.689 205781. 469 Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14nc12. out SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 202345.641 0.000 0.00 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 55.743 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 0.0000 957.192 0.038 0.52 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/ JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 14 .58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95 0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65 RUNOFF 13.093 0.145 3.596 0.354 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.056 0.000 1.277 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 502 1. 505 2.346 3.173 4.755 5.539 0.903 3.371 2.796 3.207 1.559 0.718 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.2425 0.2750 0.3439 0.2208 0.2653 0.1562 FROM LAYER 2 0.0976 o . 1267 0.1411 0.3082 0.2700 0.1637 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3190 0.3745 0.4426 0.3465 0.3863 0.2647 LAYER 3 0.1679 0.2182 0.2423 0.4168 0.3836 0.2717 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3192 0.2992 0.3009 0.2508 0.2562 0.3117 LAYER 6 0.3307 0.3508 0.3321 0.3300 0.3070 0.2885 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) 1. 295 9.535 9.458 2.317 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 11.189 5.489 5.930 14.861 7.423 1. 262 15.887 8.649 1. 712 12.747 14.936 1.557 13.811 14.187 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.239 2.037 2.075 1.789 1.093 3.288 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- 55.71 202227.234 100.00 18.561 67377.602 33.32 31.374 113888.500 56.32 2.6109 9477.539 4.69 3.833938 13917.193 6.88 11. 5143 3.677181 -0.514 55.743 55.493 0.264 0.000 0.0000 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 2 13348.167 -1864.512 202345.641 201438.312 957.192 0.000 -0.058 6.60 -0.92 0.47 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60 7.30 1.22 1.70 3.06 4.98 1.04 RUNOFF 0.448 0.253 5.304 3.113 0.000 0.000 0.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.446 1.670 2.266 3.209 4.162 2.800 3.763 3.507 2.200 2.117 1.315 0.930 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.0964 0.1145 0.3084 0.3107 0.2152 0.1209 0.1070 0.1838 0.1156 0.0989 0.1124 0.2457 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 3 0.1654 0.1956 0.4103 0.4123 0.3453 0.2086 0.1770 0.2984 0.2000 0.1701 0.1832 0.3373 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 6 0.2896 0.3100 0.3286 0.3238 0.2593 0.2158 0.3368 0.3355 0.3180 0.3252 0.3082 0.3102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 5.199 7.359 14.673 15.275 12.269 7.319 5.832 10.483 6.976 5.572 6.307 11.914 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.236 3.252 3.062 2.079 1.382 1.545 2.203 2.239 0.737 0.240 3.015 4.793 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630.984 100.00 RUNOFF 9.746 35377.988 22.30 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29.384 106664.141 67.24 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2.0294 7366.639 4.64 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 3.103532 11265.819 7.10 Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14nc12.out AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 9.0982 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 3.660923 13289.152 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.120 -4066.939 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 55.493 201438.312 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 54.372 197371. 375 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.012 8.38 -2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/ JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 0.63 6.40 1. 05 3.85 3.41 1. 55 5.62 0.37 3.33 7.66 2.25 6.18 RUNOFF 0.108 3.469 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.208 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.137 3.573 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 448 1. 350 2.052 3.244 3.592 2.982 5.058 0.362 3.089 2.137 1. 7 61 1.164 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.1516 0.0864 0.1523 0.1947 0.1610 0.1182 FROM LAYER 2 0.1399 0.0951 0.0874 0.1524 0.3488 0.3764 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2434 0.1484 0.2607 0.3180 0.2771 0.2044 LAYER 3 0.2344 0.1634 0.1499 0.2201 0.4399 0.4658 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2735 0.2768 0.3045 0.2835 o . 2976 0.2490 LAYER 6 0.2957 0.2919 0.2794 0.2810 0.2678 0.2872 Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 8.373 8.033 5.351 5.319 9.050 4.996 11. 639 7.454 9.679 16.339 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 3.593 2.825 0.212 0.233 2.783 0.213 1. 380 5.046 0.616 0.675 7.150 16.748 0.943 0.766 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 INCHES CU. FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 42.30 153549.016 RUNOFF 7.976 28952.348 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 28.239 102506.344 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2.0642 7493.008 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 3.125624 11346.017 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 9.1775 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 3.388043 12298.596 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.633 2298.729 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 54.372 197371.375 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 55.006 199670.109 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.016 100.00 18.86 66.76 4.88 7.39 8.01 1. 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4nc12.out ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------- TOTALS 5.72 3.88 STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.89 RUNOFF TOTALS 4.286 0.165 STD. DEVIATIONS 5.748 0.268 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ------------------ TOTALS 1. 427 3.123 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.216 1. 7 62 2.87 3.03 2.11 2.12 0.940 0.008 1.449 0.017 1. 535 2.983 0.132 1. 491 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 TOTALS 0.2483 0.1081 ---------------------------------------- 0.1653 0.1186 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.1279 0.0182 0.0815 0.0393 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 TOTALS ------------------------------------ 0.2495 0.2004 0.3317 0.1833 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.1338 0.0288 0.1009 0.0604 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 Page 13 5.39 3.97 3.53 1. 66 2.614 0.000 2.163 0.000 2.277 2.751 0.289 0.440 0.2681 0.1148 0.1013 0.0227 0.3662 0.1941 0.0995 0.0363 4.49 4.76 1. 82 2.16 1. 050 0.489 1. 368 0.822 3.099 2.605 0.192 0.520 0.2500 0.2058 0.0470 0.1233 4.34 3.87 2.08 1.71 0.358 0.590 0.504 1.243 4.232 1. 503 0.718 0.315 0.2349 0.2380 0.0482 0.1303 0.3664 0.3558 0.2888 0.3232 0.0374 0.0480 0.1379 0.1432 2.69 4.70 1. 47 2.35 0.000 2.524 0.000 1.976 4.306 0.920 1. 494 0.189 0.1433 0.2824 0.0218 0.1045 0.2443 0.3782 0.0348 0.0935 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14nc12.out ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.3484 0.3328 0.3690 0.3464 0.3410 0.3242 0.3671 0.3645 0.3429 0.3409 0.3204 0.3201 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0970 0.0721 0.0856 0.0914 0.1017 0.1004 0.0689 0.0611 0.0535 0.0468 0.0424 0.0372 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 11.6422 9.6127 13.0085 13.5123 12.6566 8.7282 6.0787 6.7361 6.7399 10.0671 11.7796 13.4568 STD. DEVIATIONS 5.1111 4.2521 3.7497 1.4417 1.8109 1.3785 1.1020 2.3111 1. 4360 5.2244 5.5999 3.5014 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ------------------- ------------- PRECIPITATION 49.71 6.473) 4.3998) 1. 8732) 180432.7 100.00 RUNOFF 13.023 47274.11 26.200 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.761 111662.99 61. 886 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2.37762 0.47637) 8630.747 4.78336 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH FROM LAYER 3 3.48197 0.52090) 12639.544 7.00513 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP OF LAYER 3 10.335 ( 1. 692) PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH FROM LAYER 6 4.11767 ( 0.82509) 14947.130 8.28404 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.574 0.7321) -2082.19 -1.154 Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14nc12. out ******************************************************************************* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (INCHES) (CU. FT.) ---------- ------------- 5.20 18876.000 4.617 16761.4238 0.01373 49.83303 0.016139 58.58405 18.000 0.019714 3.68 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER SNOW WATER 3 6 71. 56209 13344.2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4550 0.0399 ****************************************************************************** I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) ----- -------- --------- 1 2.5782 0.4297 2 5.4839 0.4570 3 0.0000 0.0000 4 1. 2711 0.2118 5 1.8201 0.3034 Page 15 I Fi14nc12.out I I 6 43.0662 0.2393 SNOW WATER 0.000 I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 16 I I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** ** ** ** ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** I ** ** ** ** ** ** I ** ** ** ** ** I ** ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\FISHER.D4 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D7 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D13 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D11 C:\HELP3\FIL33N12.D10 C:\HELP3\FIL33N12.0UT I I TIME: 17:56 DATE: 10/21/1998 I ****************************************************************************** I TITLE: FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL,EVAP ZONE12",33%SLOPE,NO GEOCOMPOSIT I ****************************************************************************** I NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. I LAYER 1 I I THICKNESS POROSITY TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 6 = 6.00 INCHES = 0.4530 VOL/VOL I I Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12. out FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1900 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.0850 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.1607 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.720000011000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. LAYER 2 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4570 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0.1310 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0580 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.2061 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE 33.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 18.0 FEET LAYER 3 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 0.06 INCHES 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 1.00 HOLES/ACRE 3.00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD = = = = LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12.out POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY = WILTING POINT = INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo 0.4570 VOL/VOL 0.1310 VOL/VOL 0.0580 VOL/VOL 0.1718 VOL/VOL 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0.2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2596 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 6 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS 180.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.6710 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2920 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0770 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2463 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA ---------------------------------------- NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 6 WITH A FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 33.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 18. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 76.20 100.0 PERCENT 1.000 ACRES Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12. out EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH 12.0 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 2.260 INCHES UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 5.460 INCHES LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.858 INCHES INITIAL SNOW WATER 0.000 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS 50.353 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 50.353 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00 START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 83 END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 296 AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED 12.00 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.00 % AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 70.00 % NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE. NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 35.20 78.30 32.60 78.50 42.20 69.80 49.50 55.30 63.10 44.80 69.00 32.00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW ~AVEN CONNECTICUT STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil33nl2.out ***~*************************************************************************** MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEE' APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02 1. 26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58 RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.186 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.040 0.007 0.133 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 727 1.532 2.767 2.824 3.284 3.979 1. 625 3.956 2.356 3.183 1.996 1.094 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 1.5737 0.4096 3.9417 2.6363 1.2917 0.3207 FROM LAYER 2 0.0047 0.0458 1.9336 3.8171 2.8006 6.0712 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0256 0.0088 0.0513 0.0357 0.0203 0.0066 LAYER 3 0.0002 0.0012 0.0255 0.0514 0.0388 0.0746 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3642 0.3065 0.3277 0.2957 0.2936 0.2703 LAYER 6 0.2666 0.2526 0.2353 0.2354 0.2168 0.2159 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.542 0.002 0.156 0.016 1.357 0.688 0.938 1.314 0.445 0.996 0.114 2.089 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.279 0.003 0.079 0.053 0.907 1. 065 1.032 0.636 0.470 0.745 0.162 0.990 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil33n12.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES -------- 55.98 0.471 30.323 24.8468 0.340227 0.7212 3.280490 -2.941 51.139 48.198 0.000 0.000 0.0000 CU. FEET ---------- 203207.344 1710.148 110070.812 90193.773 1235.024 11908.179 -10675.532 185635.578 174960.047 0.000 0.000 -0.038 PERCENT ------- 100.00 0.84 54.17 44.39 0.61 5.86 -5.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 9.61 1. 34 3.90 1. 76 7.65 1. 35 4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05 RUNOFF 0.786 0.382 0.211 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.000 0.000 1. 538 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.104 1.534 2.388 2.581 4.942 1.417 Page 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil33n12.out 4.201 4.083 3.249 2.305 1.109 0.787 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 6.1799 1.3854 0.8221 0.9093 1.9772 0.5212 FROM LAYER 2 0.0055 0.5770 0.2239 0.3731 0.1789 3.0884 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0834 0.0191 0.0114 0.0146 0.0276 0.0088 LAYER 3 0.0003 0.0102 0.0048 0.0076 0.0029 0.0429 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2044 0.1801 0.1928 0.1819 0.1843 0.1731 LAYER 6 0.1727 0.1680 0.1590 0.1597 0.1477 0.1506 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 2.596 0.002 0.528 0.199 0.283 0.080 0.323 0.128 0.680 0.064 0.185 1. 063 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 3.064 0.003 0.886 0.262 0.658 0.111 0.415 0.163 0.686 0.215 0.343 0.624 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.233402 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 184549.234 100.00 10763.900 5.83 107814.094 58.42 58958.059 31.95 847.249 0.46 INCHES PRECIPITATION 50.84 RUNOFF 2.965 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29.701 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 16.2419 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.5109 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 2.074325 7529.800 4. 08 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.142 -516.707 -0.28 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 48.198 174960.047 Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fi133n12. out SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 47.792 173486.156 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 0.52 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.083 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) fOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 14.58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95 0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65 RUNOff 6.973 0.000 0.210 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.176 0.029 0.011 0.000 1.013 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 584 1. 568 2.411 2.831 4.496 3.032 0.977 3.613 2.070 3.152 1.459 0.717 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 7.0534 1.3140 4.3434 0.4856 1.0830 0.4808 fROM LAYER 2 0.0001 1. 2069 1. 2922 2.3222 0.2079 0.3201 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1059 0.0206 0.0538 0.0074 0.0178 0.0085 LAYER 3 0.0000 0.0184 0.0185 0.0343 0.0050 0.0068 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1452 0.1290 0.1367 0.1309 0.1316 0.1247 LAYER 6 0.1264 0.1249 0.1185 0.1199 0.1122 0.1150 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 3.563 0.000 0.501 0.415 1. 495 0.460 0.173 0.799 0.373 0.074 0.171 0.110 STD. DEVIATION Of DAILY 4.776 0.591 1.846 0.442 0.384 0.273 Page 8 I I I Fi133n12. out HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.000 0.489 0.699 0.592 0.067 0.119 ******************************************************************************* I ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- 55.71 202227.234 100.00 8.587 31170.789 15.41 27.910 101312.367 50.10 20.1094 72996.984 36.10 0.297037 1078.244 0.53 0.6778 1.514903 -2.411 47.792 45.645 0.264 0.000 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 2 5499.099 -8751. 948 173486.156 165691.391 957.192 0.000 -0.045 2.72 -4.33 0.47 0.00 0.00 I ******************************************************************************* I I ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12.out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 1. 35 7.30 RUNOFF 0.305 1. 066 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 443 3.848 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.0002 0.7521 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 3 0.0000 0.0088 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 6 0.1155 0.0993 1.15 1. 22 0.214 0.000 1. 720 2.595 0.0190 1. 5982 0.0006 0.0226 0.0993 o . 0976 10.65 1. 70 0.315 0.000 2.319 1. 534 6.080tl 0.0018 0.0813 0.0001 0.1070 0.0936 6.60 3.06 0.290 0.000 2.949 2.118 4.5923 0.0077 0.0575 0.0004 0.1026 0.0956 2.05 4.98 0.000 0.029 3.484 1.637 0.4256 1.2184 0.0081 0.0152 0.1037 0.0905 2.60 1. 04 0.000 0.000 1. 214 1. 061 0.0002 1. 6791 0.0000 0.0245 0.0972 0.0925 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.000 0.259 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.000 0.975 0.007 0.550 0.017 0.822 2.522 0.001 2.978 0.001 1. 633 0.003 1. 319 0.004 0.146 0.433 0.214 1. 020 0.000 0.578 0.000 0.759 ******************************************************************************* *~***************************************************************************** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630.984 100.00 RUNOFF 2.218 8051. 843 5.08 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 25.923 94102.102 59.32 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 16.3745 59439.590 37.47 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.219040 795.114 0.50 Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12. out AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.5110 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 1.194263 4335.173 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -2.010 -7297.748 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 45.645 165691.391 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 43.635 158393.641 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.027 2.73 -4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 0.63 5.62 RUNOFF 0.038 0.451 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.610 3.432 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.0394 1. 8568 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 3 0.0014 0.0255 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 6 0.0907 0.0830 6.40 0.37 3.082 0.000 1.152 0.287 0.0003 0.0012 0.0000 0.0001 0.0814 0.0804 Page 11 1. 05 3.33 0.001 0.000 2.028 3.205 0.6335 0.1260 0.0116 0.0032 0.0879 0.0763 3.85 7.66 0.000 0.499 3.219 2.197 1.0309 2.4997 0.0172 0.0281 0.0834 0.0785 3.41 2.25 0.000 0.000 3.134 1. 899 0.0624 1. 4195 0.0019 0.0226 0.0853 0.0753 1. 55 6.18 0.000 0.065 2.145 1.203 0.0047 3.9276 0.0003 0.0512 0.0800 0.0758 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12. out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.014 0.639 0.000 0.00'0 0.218 0.045 0.367 0.860 0.021 0.505 0.002 1.352 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.014 0.882 0.000 0.001 0.189 0.057 0.335 1. 753 0.029 0.469 0.002 1. 027 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.163121 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 153549.016 100.00 15012.361 9.78 92608.555 60.31 42115.773 27.43 592.131 0.39 INCHES PRECIPITATION 42.30 RUNOFF' 4.136 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 25.512 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 11.6021 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.3352 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0.978032 3550.256 2.31 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.072 262.020 0.17 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 43.635 158393.641 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 43.707 158655.672 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.043 0.00 ******************************************************************************* Page :2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12.out ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTALS 5.72 3.88 STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.89 RUNOFF TOTALS 1.620 0.303 STD. DEVIATIONS 3.009 0.469 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ------------------ TOTALS 1.494 2.817 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.240 1.428 2.87 3.03 2.11 2.12 0.735 0.037 1.321 0.078 1. 501 2.907 0.210 1.577 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 TOTALS 2.9693 0.5238 ---------------------------------------- 0.6257 0.6858 STD. DEVIATIONS 3.4035 0.8126 0.6813 0.7061 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 TOTALS ------------------------------------ 0.0098 0.0105 0.0433 0.0069 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0487 0.0110 0.0098 0.0100 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 Page 13 5.39 3.97 3.53 1. 66 0.160 0.009 . 0.127 0.012 2.383 2.483 0.264 0.741 3.1641 0.7155 2.3657 0.8537 0.0419 0.0104 0.0301 0.0110 4.49 4.76 1. 82 2.16 0.130 0.110 0.127 0.218 2.881 2.591 0.231 0.530 1. 9309 1.8039 1.6973 1. 5874 4.34 3.87 2.08 1.71 0.014 0.007 0.020 0.012 3.868 1. 620 0.802 0.356 0.9680 1.1651 0.7501 1. 07 60 0.0265 0.0151 0.0243 0.0169 0.0202 0.0102 0.0206 0.0146 2.69 4.70 1. 47 2.35 0.000 0.550 0.000 0.690 2.357 0.972 1.153 0.209 0.2655 3.0173 0.2516 2.1924 0.0048 0.0400 0.0044 0.0258 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil33n12.out ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.1840 0.1592 0.1704 0.1589 0.1597 0.1490 0.1496 0.1447 0.1366 0.1378 0.1285 0.1300 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.1093 0.0904 0.0964 0.0850 0.0836 0.0764 0.0737 0.0688 0.0634 0.0625 0.0564 0.0556 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 1.3428 0.2384 1.1749 0.6867 0.3331 0.0944 0.1803 0.2360 0.2545 0.6209 0.4143 1.0384 STD. DEVIATIONS 1.6364 0.2596 0.9567 0.6036 0.2582 0.0895 0.2797 0.2430 0.3036 0.5463 0.3827 0.7545 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ------------------- PRECIPITATION 49.71 6.473) 180432.7 100.00 RUNOFF 3.675 3.0509) 13341.81 7.394 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27.874 2.1632) 101181.59 56.077 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 17.83494 4.94614) 64740.840 35.88087 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH FROM LAYER 3 0.25057 ( 0.06916) 909.553 0.50410 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP OF LAYER 3 0.551 ( 0.154) PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH FROM LAYER 6 1.80840 ( 0.92068) 6564.501 3.63820 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.486 1.3675) -5395.98 -2.991 Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133n12. out ******************************************************************************* I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ( INCHES) (CU. FT.) ---------- ------------- 5.20 18876.000 1.423 5165.6001 0.89198 3237.87354 0.013549 49.18291 15.063 0.013987 3.68 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER SNOW WATER 3 6 50.77435 13344.2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4286 0.0427 ****************************************************************************** . I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) ----- -------- --------- 1 1. 2252 0.2042 2 2.5680 0.2140 3 0.0000 0.0000 4 0.9429 0.1572 5 1.4106 0.2351 Page 15 I I Fi133n12.out I I I J I I I I I . I I 6 SNOW WATER 36.7740 0.000 0.2043 ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I I I I Page 16 I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I ** ** ** ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** -* ** ** ** ** I ** ** ** ** ** ** I I I I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\FISHER.D4 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D7 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D13 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D11 C:\HELP3\FIL33C12.D10 C:\HELP3\FIL33C12.0UT TIME: 17:59 DATE: 10/21/1998 I I ****************************************************************************** TITLE: FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL,EVAP ZONE 12",33% SLOPE,GEOCOMPOSITE I ****************************************************************************** I NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. . LAYER 1 I I THICKNESS POROSITY !YPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 6 : 6.00 INCHES : 0.4530 VOL/VOL I I Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,i133c12.out ,IELD CAPACITY = 0.1900 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.0850 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.1610 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo 0.720000011000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 ,OR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4570 VOL !VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0.1310 VOL !VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0580 VOL !VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1665 VOL !VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34 THICKNESS 0.24 INCHES POROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.0050 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0115 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 33.0000000000 CM/SEC SLOPE 33.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 18.0 FEET LAYER 4 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0.06 = 0.0000 = 0.0000 = 0.0000 INCHES VOL !VOL VOL !VOL VOL !VOL Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil33c12.out INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = FML PLACEMENT QUALITY 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 1.00 HOLES/ACRE 3.00 HOLES/ACRE 3 - GOOD LAYER 5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS 6.00 INCHES POROS ITY = 0 . 4570 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1310 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.0580 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1243 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 6 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES POROSITY 0.5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.2595 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 7 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS = 180.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.6710 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2920 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0770 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = o . 2460 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC Page 3 I I . I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I . fi133c12.out GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA ---------------------------------------- NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 6 WITH A FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 33.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 18. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 76.20 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENT AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1. 000 ACRES EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 12.0 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 1.601 INCHES UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 5.460 INCHES LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.858 INCHES INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS 49.550 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 49.550 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW 0.00 INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00 START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 83 END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 296 AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12.00 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.00 % AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 % NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE. NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133c12.out COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN!JUL FEB!AUG MAR!SEP APR!OCT MAY!NOV JUN!DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 35.20 32.60 42.20 49.50 63.10 69.00 78.30 78.50 69.80 55.30 44.80 32.00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN!JUL FEB!AUG MAR!SEP APR!OCT MAY!NOV JUN!DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02 1.26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58 RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.170 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.028 0.002 0.104 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.765 1.138 2.772 2.334 2.466 3.337 1.701 3.783 2.158 3.247 2.132 1.139 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 1.2902 0.5753 4.3739 2.7473 1.8633 0.7781 0.1432 0.4082 3.0693 3.0310 3.3215 5.2881 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 7 0.3607 0.3058 0.3195 0.2908 0.2848 0.2613 0.2568 0.2444 0.2256 0.2231 0.2068 0.2054 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 I I I I I J I I I I I I I . I I I I Fi133cl2. out AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ~AYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 liEl>.D ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 ******-******************************************************************-***** ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- 55.98 203207.344 100.00 0.397 1440.072 0.71 27.973 101540.516 49.97 26.8894 97608.633 48.03 0.000058 0.210 0.00 0.0003 3.185055 -2.464 50.336 47.872 0.000 0.000 0.0000 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 3 11561. 751 -8943.533 182718.969 173775.437 0.000 0.000 -0.096 5.69 -4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* I Page 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I Fi133c12.out ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 9.61 4.69 RUNOFF 1. 056 0.000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.128 3.069 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 6.5983 0.8432 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 7 0.1965 0.1591 1. 34 4.18 0.384 0.006 1.569 3.926 0.7176 0.8903 0.0000 0.0000 0.1715 0.1543 3.90 4.02 0.252 0.007 2.319 3.144 1.6437 0.8955 0.0000 0.0000 0.1827 0.1445 1. 76 2.57 0.000 0.000 2.006 1. 923 0.6834 0.3046 0.0000 0.0000 0.1707 0.1449 7.65 3.72 0.034 0.000 4.338 1.207 2.8944 0.7018 0.0000 0.0000 0.1703 o . 13 60 1. 35 6.05 0.000 1.475 1.191 0.835 0.4971 3.2433 0.0000 0.0000 0.1595 0.1364 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ~AYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRECIPITATION RUNOFF INCHES 50.84 rage 7 3.214 CU. FEET 184549.234 11667.439 PERCENT 100.00 6.32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133cl2. out EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 26.654 96752.234 52.43 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 19.9131 72284.516 39.17 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000044 0.158 0.00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0002 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 1.926480 6993.124 3.79 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.867 -3148.091 -1.71 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 47.872 173775.437 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 46.741 169670.156 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 0.52 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.009 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG ~.AR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 14.58 0.55 2.57 5.35 4.99 4.55 5.35 4.25 4.67 2.25 2.95 3.65 RUNOFF 6.636 0.000 0.000 0.217 0.179 0.055 0.181 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.017 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 689 1. 032 1.651 3.426 1. 974 1. 881 2.527 2.783 3.645 1. 623 2.369 0.572 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 7.3068 0.1127 1.0515 1. 5166 4.3775 1.9216 1.9945 2.0907 1.3600 0.6748 0.4773 0.2542 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 c.oooo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I fi133c12.out LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 7 0.1327 0.1136 0.1168 0.1109 0.1258 0.1049 0.1188 0.1059 0.1195 0.1005 0.1129 0.1010 MONTHLY SUMMARIES fOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 STD. DEVIATION Of DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS fOR YEAR 1979 INCHES CU. fEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT PRECI PITATION 55.71 202227.234 RUNOff 8.293 30102.746 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 25.171 91370.602 DRAINAGE COLLECTED fROM LAYER 3 23.1381 83991. 414 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000047 0.169 AVG. HEAD ON TOP Of LAYER 4 0.0002 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 1.363319 4948.847 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -2.255 -8186.381 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 46.741 169670.156 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 44.750 162440.969 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 Page 9 100.00 14.89 45.18 41.53 0.00 2.45 -4.05 0.47 0.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,U33c12.out ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.013 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/ JUL ,EB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 1. 35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60 7.30 1.22 1. 70 3.06 4.98 1. 04 RUNOFF 0.304 0.223 0.434 0.287 0.000 0.000 1. 060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.243 1. 496 2.325 2.906 2.977 1.274 3.654 2.597 1. 412 2.167 1. 690 1. 078 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0885 0.0618 6.3804 4.4178 o . 6767 0.0986 ,ROM LAYER 3 1.4853 1. 0467 0.0995 0.0822 2.4101 0.9168 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1022 0.0876 0.0950 0.0901 0.0912 0.0865 LAYER 7 0.0876 0.0860 0.0816 0.0828 0.078 6 0.0798 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 ******************************************************************************* Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133cl2.out ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES -------- 43.70 2.327 24.820 17.7641 0.000037 0.0002 1.048917 -2.259 44.750 42.490 0.000 0.000 0.0000 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 3 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 158630.984 100.00 8445.600 5.32 90095.242 56.80 64483.590 40.65 0.134 0.00 3807.569 -8200.997 162440.969 154239.969 0.000 0.000 -0.015 2.40 -5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133c12. out 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.441 0.000 0.090 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.291 0.941 1.964 2.786 2.906 2.090 3.375 0.286 2.727 2.157 1. 975 1.226 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.1043 0.0438 0.6125 1. 3646 0.3153 0.1463 FROM LAYER 3 1.8418 0.0996 0.3815 3.0589 0.9098 3.8695 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0783 0.0697 0.0758 0.0722 0.0732 0.0698 LAYER 7 0.0709 0.0699 0.0663 o . 0676 0.0644 0.0656 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SU~.ARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000031 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 153549.016 100.00 15150.217 9.87 86117.656 56.08 46274.680 30.14 0.111 0.00 INCHES PRECIPITATION 42.30 RUNOFF 4.174 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 23.724 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 12.7478 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0001 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 0.843638 3062.407 1. 99 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.811 2944.030 1. 92 Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133c12.out SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 42.490 154239.969 SOIL WATER .'.T END OF YEAR 43.301 157184.000 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.024 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTALS 5.72 3.88 STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.89 RUNOFF TOTALS 1. 606 0.316 STD. DEVIATIONS 2.844 0.473 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ------------------ TOTALS 1.423 2.566 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.285 1.139 2.87 3.03 2.11 2.12 0.740 0.045 1.325 0.096 1.359 2.803 0.305 1. 499 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 ---------------------------------------- Page 13 5.39 3.97 3.53 1. 66 0.183 0.014 0.172 0.023 2.271 2.264 0.331 0.684 4.49 4.76 1. 82 2.16 0.128 0.095 0.125 0.194 2.512 2.455 0.360 0.545 4.34 3.87 2.08 1. 71 0.014 0.004 0.019 0.008 3.266 1. 726 0.733 0.357 2.69 4.70 1. 47 2.35 0.000 0.537 0.000 0.668 2.052 0.970 0.880 0.266 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOTALS 3.0776 0.8852 Fi133c12.out 0.4900 0.7923 0.4350 0.5537 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 STD. DEVIATIONS 3.5795 0.7785 ------------------------------------ PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.1503 0.1331 0.0951 0.0699 3.4776 1. 2735 2.3244 1.2208 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1597 0.1246 0.0980 0.0637 2.2415 1.7135 1.4361 1. 4435 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1485 0.1249 0.0878 0.0622 1.4219 1.6036 1.0182 1.1999 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1478 0.1173 0.0849 0.0569 0.3995 2.7144 0.2800 2.0930 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1380 0.1176 0.0768 0.0558 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 0.1741 0.1376 DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0004 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 ******************************************************************************* STD. DEVIATIONS 0.1133 0.0745 ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Page 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ------------------- ------------- --------- 49.71 6.473 ) 180432.7 100.00 3.681 2.9304) 13361. 21 7.405 25.668 1. 6605) 93175.24 51. 640 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi133c12.out LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 20.09052 ( 5.35891) 72928.570 40.41870 FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.00004 ( 0.00001) 0.157 0.00009 FROM LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 0.000 ( 0.000) OF LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1.67348 ( 0.93859) 6074.740 3.36676 FROM LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1. 407 1.3941) -5106.99 -2.830 ******************************************************************************* .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (INCHES) (CU. FT.) ---------- ------------- 5.20 18876.000 1.431 5192.9995 1.60993 5844.04883 0.000002 0.00730 0.006 0.012429 3.68 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER SNOW WATER 4 7 45.11599 13344.2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.3495 0.0390 ****************************************************************************** I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 15 I Fi133cl2. out I ****************************************************************************** I FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LAYER ( INCHES) (VOL !VOL ) ----- -------- --------- 1 1.2466 0.2078 2 3.0493 0.2541 3 0.0029 0.0121 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.6712 0.1119 6 1. 3978 0.2330 7 36.1476 0.2008 SNOW WATER 0.000 I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I I I I I I I I I Page 16 I I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** ** ** ** I ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I ** ** ** ** ** I I I ** ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\FISHER.D4 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D7 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D13 C:\HELP3\FISHER.D11 C:\HELP3\FIL4G12.D10 C:\HELP3\FIL4G12.0UT I I TIME: 17:59 DATE: 10/16/1998 I I I I ****************************************************************************** TITLE: FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL, EVAP ZONE 1Z",4%SLOPE,GEOCOMPOSITE ****************************************************************************** NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. I LAYER 1 I I THICKNESS POROSITY TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 6 = 6.00 INCHES = 0.4530 VOL/VOL I I Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12. out FIELD CAPACITY 0.1900 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0850 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1614 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo 0.720000011000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4570 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1310 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0580 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1966 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34 THICKNESS = 0.24 INCHES POROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0151 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 33.0000000000 CM/SEC SLOPE = 4.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 200.0 FEET LAYER 4 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0.06 INCHES = 0.0000 VOL/VOL = 0.0000 VOL/VOL = 0.0000 VOL/VOL Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4g12.out INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = FML PINHOLE DENSITY = FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = FML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOL 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 1.00 HOLES/ACRE 3.00 HOLES/ACRE 3 - GOOD LAYER 5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 5 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4570 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.1310 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0580 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.1252 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 6 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2595 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 7 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS = 180.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.6710 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2920 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0770 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2460 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONDo = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4g12.out GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA ---------------------------------------- NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 6 WITH A FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 200. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 70.50 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENT AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1. 000 ACRES EVAPORATIvE ZONE DEPTH = 12.0 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 1.935 INCHES UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 5.460 INCHES LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.858 INCHES INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 49.918 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 49.918 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 2.00 = 83 = 296 = 12.00 MPH = 65.00 % = 69.00 % = 74.00 % = 70.00 % NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE. NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING ?age 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4g12.out COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 35.20 78.30 32.60 78.50 42.20 69.80 49.50 55.30 63.10 44.80 69.00 32.00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT STATIC, LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) "FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02 1. 26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58 RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 753 1. 309 2.772 2.643 2.485 3.372 1. 691 3.805 2.166 3.238 2.113 1.132 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 1.3569 0.7077 4.4279 2.5662 1. 8864 0.7487 FROM LAYER 3 0.1359 0.3689 3.0777 3.0537 3.3593 5.7456 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0002 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0006 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3603 0.3059 0.3192 0.2911 0.2846 0.2614 LAYER 7 0.2563 0.2444 0.2257 0.2231 0.2069 0.2049 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 Fi14g12. out 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.006 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ******************************************************************************* INCHES 55.98 0.069 28.478 27.4350 0.003547 0.0020 3.183747 -3.186 50.704 47.518 0.000 0.000 0.0000 Page 6 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 203207.344 100.00 251. 558 0.12 103375.555 50.87 99589.109 49.01 12.875 0.01 11557.003 5.69 -11565.848 -5.69 184056.969 172491.125 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 -0.039 0.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12. out ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 9.61 1. 34 3.90 1. 76 7.65 1. 35 4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05 RUNOFF 0.587 0.384 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1. 475 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.124 1. 563 2.315 2.003 4.155 1.133 3.093 3.715 3.151 1. 930 1.204 0.835 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 6.7043 0.7216 1. 7216 0.6880 3.3208 0.3302 FROM LAYER 3 0.8318 1.1071 0.9025 0.2978 0.7002 3.2427 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0007 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 LAYER 4 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1967 0.1711 0.1830 0.1707 0.1703 0.1592 LAYER 7 0.1589 0.1544 0.1442 0.1449 0.1362 o . 13 64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.003 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.003 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 50.84 184549.234 100.00 RUNOFF 2.625 9529.780 5.16 Page -: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4g12.out EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 26.222 95185.094 51.58 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 20.5685 74663.625 40.46 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.002648 9.611 0.01 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0015 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 1.926053 6991. 574 3.79 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.502 -1820.878 -0.99 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 47.518 172491.125 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 46.753 169713.047 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 0.52 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.038 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* .MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 14.58 0.55 2.57 5.35 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65 RUNOFF 5.968 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.048 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.017 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 690 1. 021 1. 652 3.188 2.358 2.549 4,126 2.372 1.860 2.757 1.594 0.572 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 7.9726 0.1068 1.0475 1.9688 4.0597 1.3649 1.6963 0.4580 1.9431 2.1149 0.6959 0.2601 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0007 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fil4g12.out LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 PERCOLATION THROUGH LAYER 7 0.1329 0.1138 O. 1167 0.1110 0.1259 0.1048 0.1187 0.1059 0.1198 0.1002 0.1126 0.1012 MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.013 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979 INCHES CU. FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227.234 RUNOFF 7.170 26027.477 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 25.739 93432.789 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 23.6884 85988.930 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.002888 10.483 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0017 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 1.363436 4949.271 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -2.251 -8171.149 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 46.753 169713.047 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 44.766 162499.094 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 Page 9 100.00 12.87 46.20 42.52 0.01 2.45 -4.04 0.47 0.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12. out ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.070 0.00 ******************************************************************************* *****~************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PRECIPITATION 1. 35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60 7.30 1. 22 1. 70 3.06 4.98 1. 04 RUNOFF 0.307 0.227 0.247 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 225 1.471 2.311 2.900 2.974 1. 278 3.654 2.593 1.419 2.150 1. 682 1.075 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0890 0.0762 6.2569 4.9309 0.6765 0.1025 FROM LAYER 3 1.9210 1.0564 0.1001 0.0836 2.4417 0.9203 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 LAYER 4 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1023 0.0875 0.0951 0.0902 0.0910 0.0866 LAYER 7 0.0875 0.0861 0.0816 0.0827 0.078 6 0.0799 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.001 ******************************************************************************* Page 10 I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12.out ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- 43.10 158630.984 100.00 1.519 5514.257 3.48 24.733 89781.461 56.60 18.6549 67717.383 42.69 0.002269 8.237 0.01 0.0014 1.049194 -2.256 44.766 42.509 0.000 0.000 0.0000 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE I I I I I I I 3 3808.575 -8190.708 162499.094 154308.391 0.000 0.000 0.022 2.40 -5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRECIPITATION I I I RUNOFF JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.63 6.40 1. 05 3.85 3.41 1. 55 5.62 0.37 3.33 7.66 2.25 6.18 0.033 3.092 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 11 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I fil4g12.out 0.277 0.000 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.005 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.292 0.941 1. 962 2.784 2.902 2.072 3.387 0.281 2.725 2.164 1.980 1.227 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.1042 0.0438 0.6125 1. 3671 0.3187 0.1610 fROM LAYER 3 2.0636 0.1001 0.3955 3.2607 0.9062 3.9510 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 LAYER 4 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 0.0005 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0785 0.0697 0.0758' 0.0721 0.0734 0.0698 LAYER 7 0.0709 0.0698 0.0666 0.0676 0.0646 0.0655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.005 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.001882 CU. FEET PERCENT ---------- ------- 153549.016 100.00 13217.549 8.61 86101. 531 56.07 48222.719 31.41 6.832 0.00 INCHES PRECIPITATION 42.30 RUNOFF 3.641 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 23.719 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 13.2845 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0010 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 0.844165 3064.319 2.00 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.811 2942.922 1. 92 Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE Fi14g12. out 42.509 43.320 0.000 0.000 0.0000 154308.391 157251.312 0.000 0.000 -0.031 0.00 0.00 0.00 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTALS 5.72 3.88 STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.89 RUNOFF TOTALS 1.379 0.179 STD. DEVIATIONS 2.576 0.272 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS 1.417 2.569 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.285 1.150 2.87 3.03 2.11 2.12 0.741 0.016 1. 324 0.035 1.387 2.716 0.280 1.445 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 ---------------------------------------- Page 13 5.39 3.97 3.53 1. 66 0.096 0.001 0.112 0.002 2.344 2.264 0.288 0.687 4.49 4.76 1. 82 2.16 0.045 0.047 0.050 0.104 2.576 2.448 0.347 0.538 4.34 3.87 2.08 1.71 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.329 1. 715 0.765 0.356 2.69 4.70 1. 47 2.35 0.000 0.502 0.000 0.698 2.045 0.968 0.907 0.265 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12. out TOTALS 3.2454 0.5194 3.4157 2.1834 1. 5797 0.3601 1.0118 0.9203 1.2838 1. 7 621 1. 6206 2.8240 STD. DEVIATIONS 3.7982 0.4410 2.2494 1. 6784 1. 1774 0.2586 0.9423 0.7296 1. 2236 1. 5000 1.2155 2.2460 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.0003 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.1741 0.1502 0.1598 0.1485 0.1478 0.1379 0.1375 0.1331 0.1246 0.1248 0.1173 0.1176 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.1131 0.0952 o . 0979 0.0880 0.0848 0.0768 0.0743 0.0699 0.0636 0.0622 0.0569 0.0556 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 0.0028 0.0005 0.0029 0.0019 0.0014 0.0003 0.0009 0.0008 0.0011 0.0015 0.0014 0.0024 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0033 0.0004 0.0019 0.0015 0.0010 0.0002 0.0008 0.0006 0.0011 0.0013 0.0011 0.0019 ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ------------------- ------------- --------- 49.71 6.473) 180432.7 100.00 3.005 2.6797) 10908.12 6.046 25.778 1.7901) 93575.29 51.862 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fi14g12. out LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 20.72627 ( 5.32627) 75236.359 41.69773 FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.00265 ( 0.00063) 9.608 0.00532 FROM LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 0.002 ( 0.000) OF LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1. 67332 ( 0.93786) 6074.148 3.36643 FROM LAYER 7 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1. 477 1. 6057) -5361.13 -2.971 ***************************************************...*****.******************* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ****************************************************************************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (INCHES) (CU. FT.) ---------- ------------- 5.20 18876.000 1.421 5156.9385 1.82873 6638.30566 0.000121 0.43929 0.049 0.012192 3.68 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER SNOW WATER 4 7 44.25743 13344.2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.3524 0.0390 ****************************************************************************** I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I Page 15 I Fil4g12.out I ****************************************************************************** I FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I LAYER (INCHES) (VOL !VOL) ----- -------- --------- 1 1. 2465 0.2078 2 3.0491 0.2541 3 0.0043 0.0177 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.6865 0.1144 6 1. 3978 0.2330 7 36.1498 0.2008 SNOW WATER 0.000 I I I I I ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** I I , I I I I I I I Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , \ J> 'tJ 'tJ CD ~ Q, -. >< c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D HYDROCAD RESULTS . I 468\FOJ I 0804DOC I,ata for Page 1 FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Applied 'repared ~droCAD I!ATERSHED ROUTING I I I I I I I SUBCATCHMENT 1 I SUBCATCHMENT 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 I SUB CATCHMENT 4 POND 1 I I I I I I I 28 Oct 98 Microcomputer Systems ============================================================= o 0 ~&/ /~ <2) G o SUBCATCHI1ENT o REACH DPOND CJ UNK = FIL 1, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL -> POND 1 = FIL-2, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL -> POND 1 = FIL 3, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL -> POND 1 = FIL-4, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL -> POND 1 = EXISTING EASTERLY WETLANDS -> Ita for lepared droCAD FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Page 2 28 Oct 98 Microcomputer Systems II RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN, SCS U.H. IUBCAT , UMBER I 1 I : I 4 I I I I I I . I I I I I RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= .10 HRS, 101 POINTS AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS\ (AF) 1. 61 20.2 100%71 71 3.6 12.24 .36 .95 17.2 100%71 71 2.3 12.21 .21 .88 15.7 100%71 71 2.1 12.19 .20 1.12 11.6 100%71 71 3.1 12.12 .25 I.ata for ..,repared ydroCAD I REACH I NO. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Aoolied Microcomputer Systems DIAM (IN) BOTTOM WIDTH 1FT) REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD DEPTH (FT) SIDE SLOPES (FT/FT) PEAK VEL. (FPS) n LENGTH 1FT) SLOPE 1FT 1FT) TRAVEL TIME IMIN) Page 3 28 Oct 98 PEAK Qout ICFS) lata for I POND INO. I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 0 636 86- 95 A lied Mi Page 4 28 Oct 98 st POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG 1FT) 1FT) 1FT) IAF) ICFS) ICFS) ICFS) ICFS) (% ) IMIN) 6.0 8.0 6.1 1. 01 10.6 0.0 100 468.5 .,ata for lirepared l;ydrocAD I INK NO. NAME I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Applied SOURCE Microcomputer Systems Page 5 28 Oct 98 Qout (CFS) Method Comment I"R-55 SHEET FLOW FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL rass: Dense n=.24 L=205' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/' SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL IJnpaVed Kv=16.1345 L=275' s=.045 'I' V=3.42 fps Total Length= 480 ft 100ta for Irepared ydroCAD I;UBCATCHMENT 1 PEAK= 3.6 I ACRES 1. 61 I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 A90lied Microcomouter Systems Page 6 28 Oct 98 FIL 1, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL CFS @ 12.24 HRS, VOLUME= .36 AF CN 71 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS HELP MODEL RCN Tc (min) 18.9 1.3 Total Tc= 20.2 SUB CATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF FIL I, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL 3 6 3 4 3 2 3 0 2 8 2 6 ~ 2 4 <il 2 2 'U 2 0 ~ 1 8 I 6 ::; \ 4 o I 2 ~ 1 0 8 6 4 2 o ~ AREA= \ 61 AC Tc= 20 2 MIN CN= 71 5C5 TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 0 IN PEAK= 3 6 CF5 @ 12 24 HR5 UOLUME= 36 AF N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ Q N TIME ChDur5) SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 3.6 CFS @ 12. 24 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 .5 .7 1.0 1.6 2.7 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.0 .8 .7 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 .3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 l3.ta for I'repared ydroCAD FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Aop1ied Page 7 28 Oct 98 Microcomputer Systems FIL-2, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL IUBCATCHMENT 2 PEAK= 2.3 CFS I I ACRES .95 .21 AF @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME = CN 71 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS HELP MODEL RCN ethod Comment I R-55 SHEET FLOW FISHER ISLAND rass: Dense n=.24 L=180' P2=3.3 in s=.04 HALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW FISHER ISLAND Inpaved Kv=16.1345 L=90' s=.15 'I' V=6.25 Total Length= LANDFILL , I' LANDFILL fps 270 ft Tc (minl 17.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 .2 Total Tc= 17.2 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF FIL-2, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL ~ ! ~I ~ I 4 <+- u 1 2 ~ I 0 ::3 o 8 -1 l.L 6 4 2 o 01:) AREA= 95 AC Tc= 17 2 MIN CN= 71 SCS"TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 0 IN PEAK= 2 ] CFS @ 12 21 HRS IJOLUME= 21 AF IS) [\J [\J rY) '7 L[) \D r-- ro Cl' TIME (hour.,) SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 2.3 CFS @ 12. 21 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 .1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 . 3 .5 .7 1.1 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.2 .9 .7 .5 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 . 3 .3 .3 .3 . 3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 IUBCATCHMENT 3 PEAK= 2.1 CFS I ACRES .88 I I ita for I,epared :droCAD FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Icl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems Page 8 28 Oct 98 FIL 3, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL @ 12.19 HRS, VOLUME = .20 AF CN 71 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS HELP MODEL RCN :ethod Comment .-R-55 SHEET FLOW FISHER ISLAND ,ass: Dense n=.24 L=160' P2=3.3 in s=.04 HALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW FISHER ISLAND I npaved Kv=16.1345 L=65' s=.15 'I' V=6.25 LANDFILL , /' LANDFILL fps Tc (minI 15.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUR 10.00 11. 00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 .2 Total Length= 225 ft Total Tc= 15.7 SUB CATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF FIL 3, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL 2 0 1 8 I 5 ~ I 4 'u I 2 ~ 1 0 8 5 4 2 00d) AREA= 88 AC Tc= 15 7 MIN eN= 71 ses TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 0 IN :3 o ..J lJ.. PEAK= 2 I CFS @ 12 19 HRS UOLUME= 20 AF N M "" L() UJ " CD C1' IS) N TIME (hour,,) SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 2.1 CFS ta 12.19 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .3 .5 .7 1.1 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.1 . 8 . 6 .5 .4 .4 .3 . 3 .3 .3 . 3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 .1 I:UBCATCHMENT 4 PEAK= 3.1 I ACRES 1.12 I :1 t d :R-55 SHEET FLOW FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL rass: Dense n=.24 L=100' P2=3.3 in s=.04 'j' RECTjVEEjTRAP CHAHHEL FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL 1'1=3' D=1.5' SS= 1 & 2 'j' a=6.19 sq-ft Pw=6.8' r=.91' '=.02 'j' n=.033 V=5.98 fps L=310' Capacity=3? cfs _ECTjVEEjTRAP CHAHHEL FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL (=3' D=1.5' SS= 1 & 2 'j' a=6.19 sq-ft Pw=6.8' r=.91' ;=.15 'j' n=.033 V=16.38 fps L=50' Capacity=101.3 cfs I ata for I'repared ydroCAD I I I I I I I I I I I FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 lcl 1986-1995 APplied Page 9 28 Oct 98 Microcomputer Systems FIL-4, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL CFS @ 12.12 HRS, .25 AF VOLUME = CN 71 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS HELP MODEL RCN .9 . 1 Total Length= 460 ft Total Tc= 11.6 SUBCATCHMENT 4'RUNOFF FIL-4, FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL 3 0 2 8 2 5 2 4 2 2 J) 2 0 '- I 8 ~I 5 1 4 ::3 I 2 '310 lJ.. 8 6 4 2 0~ AREA= 1 12 AC T c= I 16M I N CN= 71 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 0 IN PEAK= 3 1 CFS @ 12 12 HRS lJOLUME= 25 AF N ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ro ~ Q N TIME ChDur5) I ata for I'repared ydroCAD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Applied Page 10 28 Oct 98 Microcomputer Systems SUB CATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 3.1 CFS !l 12.12 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .5 .8 1.1 1.9 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 .8 . 6 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 .3 .3 .3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 lata for .repared . ydroCAD IOND 1 Qin = 10.6 I Qout= 0.0 ELEVATION 1FT) 6.0 8.0 ROUTE P I I I I I I I I I I I I FEET 6.0 7.0 8.0 FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Aoo1ied AREA lAC) 6.00 8.70 INC.STOR IAF) 0.00 14.70 Page 11 Microcomputer Systems 28 Oct 98 EXISTING EASTERLY WETLANDS VOLUME = VOLUME = 1.01 AF 0.00 AF, ATTEN=100%, CFS @ 12.19 HRS, CFS @ 20.00 HRS, LAG= 468.5 MIN STOR-IND METHOD PEAK STORAGE = PEAK ELEVATION= FLOOD ELEVATION= START ELEVATION= SPAN= 10-20 HRS, CUM. STOR IAFI 0.00 14.70 INVERT OUTLET DEVICES NO CULVERT AND ROADWAY SPILLWAY ELEV I FT) 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 6.0' POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE ICFS) vs ELEVATION 0.0 0.00 .01 .02 . 1 0.00 .01 8 7 7 ~ +' 7 4- 7 z 7 0 ~ >- 6 <I ~ 6 w --l 6 w 6 6 .2 0.00 .01 . 3 0.00 .01 . 4 0.00 .01 . 6 .01 .02 . 5 .01 .02 POND 1 DISCHARGE EXISTING EASTERLY WETLANDS o 8 6 4 2 o 8 6 4 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / all N G) N <;t c:J Cl Cl G) is) is) ROADWAY N <;t SPILLWAY cD CD is) N is) G) G) CULUERT cD CD G) Cl G) G) AND Cl G) is) G) c:J DISCHARGE Ccf~) 1. OlAF 6.1 FT 8.0 FT 6.0 FT dt=.l HRS DISCHICFS) 0.00 .01 .02 93.00 349.00 .7 .01 .02 . 8 .01 .02 .9 .01 .02 l:ita for Irepared ydroCAD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUR 10.00 11. 00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13 .00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 FISHER ISLAND LANDFILL TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN by Applied Microcomputer Systems 4.00 000636 Ic) 1986-1995 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems Page 12 28 Oct 98 PONO 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW EXISTING EASTERLY WETLANDS 10 9 8 ~ 7 .n 4- 6 u ~ 5 :3 4 0 --l 3 lJ... 2 I 0dJ STOR-IND METHOD PEAK STOR= 1 01 AF PEAK ELEU= 61FT Q'n= 10 6 CFS Qout= 0 0 CFS LAG= 468 5 MIN N ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ro ~ l:l N TIME (hour:;) POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 10.6 CFS @ 12.19 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 3 .3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 . 6 . 6 .8 .9 1.1 1.6 2.4 3.5 5.8 9.5 10.6 9.1 7.3 5.7 4.2 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 . 8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . 6 .6 .6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 .3 .3 .3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @ 20.00 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )> "C "C CD :J C. -. >< m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +1468\F0310804.DOC(RIO) APPENDIX E RESULTS OF AUGUST 1999 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS I CLASS GA SAMPLE 10 MW-2 MW-4 MW-6 MW-13 FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK CRDL GROUNDWATER DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 8112199 8/12199 8/12199 8112199 8/12199 STD/GUIDELlNE UNITS lualll lualll lualll lualll lualll lualll lua/ll (ug/l) Chloromethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Bromomethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Vinyl Chloride U U U U U U 5 2 ST Chloroethane 7 U 1 J 13 U U 5 5 ST Methylene Chloride 3 JB 2 JB 2 JB 3 JB 10 B 2 JB 5 5 ST Acetone U U U U 4J U 5 50GV Carbon Disulfide U U U U U U 5 5GV 1,1-Dichloroethene U U U U U U 5 5ST 1,1-Dichloroethane 6 U U 2 J U U 5 5ST Chloroform U U U U U U 5 7 ST 1,2-Dichloroethane U U U U U U 5 0.6 ST 2-Butanone U U U U U U 5 - 1.1, i-Trichloroethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Carbon Tetrachloride U U U U U U 5 5ST Vinyl Acetate U U U U U U 5 ---- Bromodichloromethane U U U U U U 5 50 GV 1,2-Dichloropropane U U U U U U 5 1 ST cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U 5 0.4 ST Trichloroethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Dibromochloromethane U U U U U U 5 50GV 1,1,2- Trichloroethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Benzene U U U 2 J U U 5 1 ST trans-1,3-DichlorQPropene U U U U U U 5 0.4 ST Bromoform U U U U U U 5 50 GV 4-Methyl-2-pentanone U U U U U U 5 5 ST 2-Hexanone U U U U U U 5 50GV T etrachloroethene U U U U U U 5 5 ST 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Toluene U U U U U U 5 5ST Chlorobenzene 2 J U 7 10 U U 5 5ST Ethylbenzene U U U 7 U U 5 5ST Styrene U U U U U U 5 5 ST Xylene (tolal) U U U U U U 5 5 ST Acrylonitrile U U U U U U 25 5 ST 1,2-Dibromoethane U U U U U U 5 5 ST 1,Z-Oibromo-3-chloropropane U U U U U U 5 0.04 ST Dibromomethane U U U U U U 5 5 ST trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene U U U U U U 5 5ST lodomethane U U U U U U 5 5ST 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane U U U U U U 5 5ST Trichlorofluoromethane U U U U U U 5 5ST 1,2,3- Trichloropropane U U U U U U 5 5ST 1,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U U 5 3 ST 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 J U 2 J 4 J U U 5 3 ST Bromochloromethane U U U U U U 5 5 ST cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U U U 3 J U U 5 5ST trans~1.2-Dichloroethene U U U U U U 5 5 ST I I I I I I I I I I I I I QUALIFIERS' U: Analyzed for but not detected J:Compound found at a concentration below CRDL, value estimated B:Compound found in method blank CRDL: Contract Required Detection Limit ~: -~: Not established D:Concentration exceeds Class GA Groundwater STD/Guideline ST: Slandard GV: Guidance Value I I I 1468Noa/rp 10/21/1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS INORGANIC PARAMETERS CLASS GA SAMPLE 10 MW-2 MW-2F MW-4 MW-4F MW-6 MW-6F FIELD BLANK IDL GROUNDWATER DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 STD/GUIDELINE UNITS (ualll lualll (un/II lualll (ualll lualll lualll (ualll (ugll) Aluminum 12100 U 12100 U 10000 U U 39 __h Antimony U U U U U U U 2 3ST Arsenic 12 6.5 B 3.1 B U 6.1 B 7.2 B U 3 25 ST Barium 155 B 61.4 B 88.1 B 9B 73.4 B 51.4 B U 1 1000 ST Beryllium U U U U U U U 2 3GV Boron 147 B U U U 323 B 279 B U 140 1000 ST Cadmium U U U U U U U 2 5ST Calcium 25100 26600 3630 2130 61200 59500 83.4 B 91 hh Chromium 14.3 B U 13 B U 7.4 B U U 2 50 ST Cobalt 16.5 B 10 B 5.6 B U 4.8 B U U 3 ---- Copper 18.1 B U 17.8 B 2.4 B 2.9 B U U 2 200 ST Iron 13100 U 11800 U 4380 42.8 B U 23 300 ST" Lead 13.2 U 11.1 U 10.6 3.4 B 6.5 B 3 25 ST Magnesium 27500 27000 3320 922 43400 41600 U 19 35000 GV Manganese 679 562 210 5.6 B 4630 3330 U 3 300 sr Mercury U U 0.17 B U U U U 0.1 0.7 ST Nickel 15.1 B 6.8 B 11.1 B U 4.9 B 2.5 B U 1 ---- Potassium 4500 1900 2950 1900 4260 3960 U 126 ---- Selenium U U 7.9 B U U U U 4 10 ST Silver U U U U U U U 3 50 ST Sodium 43300 47900 4270 4580 83400 80600 196 B 150 20000 GV Thailium U U U U U U U 3 0.5 GV Vanadium 21.8 B U 20.7 B U 23.8 B U U 2 ---- Zinc 65.3 21.6 B 34.1 B 5.7 B 14.7 B 11 B 5.4 B 2 2000 GV Cyanide U NA 1.7 B NA 1.9 B NA U 1 200 ST QUALIFIERS. U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration found> IDL but < CRDL NA: Not analyzed IOl: Instrument Detection Limit F: Dissoived metals filtered in lab D: Concentration exceeds NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Standard/Guideline ---- : Not eslabiished GV: Guidance Vaiue ST:Slandard ST": Standard for the sum of Iron and Manganese is 500 ug/I 1468/INOR.xls/rp/kb - - 10/1/99 ------------------- FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS LEACHATE PARAMETERS CLASS GA SAMPLE 10 MW-2 MW-4 MW-6 FIELD BLANK Reporting GROUNDWATER DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 8/12/99 Limit STD/GUIDELlNE UNITS (ma/ll (mgJl) (mg/I) (ma/ll Ima/ll (mg/I) Color (pUCo Units) U U U U 10 ---- Alkalinity (as CaC03) 120 10 360 6 5 ---- Ammonia (as N) U U 0.4 U 0.2 2ST BOD U U U U 6 ---- Bromide 1.1 0.37 1.01 0.08 0.02 2 GV Chemical Oxygen Demand U U U U 10 ---- Chloride 80 9 60 U 5 250 ST Chromium ( VI ) U U U U 0.01 0.05 ST Hardness (as CaC03) 180 23 340 U 4 ---- Nitrate (as N) U U U U 4 10ST Phenols, total U U U U 0.1 0.001 ST Sulfate 47 U 54 U 7 250 ST Total Organic Carbon 5 U 9 U 1 ---- TDS 330 40 530 11 10 ---- Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) 2.2 U 1.3 U 0.9 ---- QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected D: Concentration exceeds NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Standard/Guideline ---- : Not established 1468/LEACH.xls/rp 10/1/99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1468Noa/kr FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN SURFACE WATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CLASS C (WILDLIFE SURFACE CRDL PROTECTION) WATER SURFACE WATER STANDARD/GUID- SAMPLE ID ANCE VALUE DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 UNITS (uafll lun/II (ug/I) Chloromethane U 5 -- Bromomethane U 5 --- Vinyl Chloride U 5 -- Chloroethane U 5 -- Methylene Chloride 2 JB 5 --- Acetone U 5 -- Carbon Disulfide U 5 -- 1,1-Dichloroethene U 5 -- 1,1-Dichloroethane U 5 -- Chloroform U 5 -- 1,2-Dichloroethane U 5 --- 2-Butanone U 5 -- 1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 5 --- Carbon Tetrachloride U 5 -- Vinyl Acetate U 5 --- Bromodichloromethane U 5 -- 1,2-Dichloropropane U 5 -- cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 55 - Trichloroethane U 5 -- Dibromochlorornethane U 5 -- 1,1,2- Trichloroethane U 5 -- Benzene U 5 -- trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 5 -- Bromoform U 5 --- 4-Methyl-2-pentanone U 5 -- 2-Hexanone U 5 -- Tetrachloroethane U 5 --- 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 5 -- Toluene U 5 --- Chlorobenzene U 5 - Ethylbenzene U 5 - Styrene U 5 -- Xylene (total) U 5 -- Aaylonitrile U 25 - 1.2-Dibromoethane U 5 -- 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane U 5 -- Dibromornethane U 5 -- trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene U 5 -- lodomethane U 5 -- 1,1,1,2.Tetrachloroethane U 5 --- Trichlorofluaromethane U 5 -- 1,2,3- Trichloropropane U 5 -- 1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 5 -- 1 A-Dichlorobenzene U 5 -- Bromochloromethane U 5 -- cis-1,2.0ichloroethene U 5 -- trans-1,2-0ichloroethene U 5 -- I!IQIES U: Analyzed for but not detected J:Compound found at a concentration below CROL, value estimated B:Compound found in method blank ---; Not established CRDL: Contract Required Detection Limit . Applies to the sum of 1,2- , 1,3-, and 1 A-dichlorobenzene 10/21/1999 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN SURFACE WATER SAMPLING RESULTS INORGANIC PARAMETERS SAMPLE 10 SURFACE WATER IDL CLASS C (WILDLIFE DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 PROTECTION) SURFACE WATER STANDARD/GUIDANCE UNITS lualll lualll (ug/l) Aluminum 13700 39 --- Antimony 10.5 B 2 m Arsenic 54.6 3 --- Barium 2020 1 --- Beryllium U 2 m Boron 836 140 --- Cadmium 27.9 2 m Calcium 78400 91 --- Chromium 64.8 2 --- Cobalt 18.9 B 3 ... Copper 398 2 --- Iron 292000 23 --. Lead 2680 3 m Magnesium 9610 19 m Manganese 844 3 --- Mercury 1.9 0.1 0.0026' Nickel 159 1 --- Potassium 5940 126 --- Selenium 142 4 m Silver 39.3 3 --- Sodium 20700 150 --- Thallium U 3 --- Vanadium 70.2 2 --- Zinc 8120 2 --- Cyanide 4.7 B 1 ... QUALIFIERS' U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration found> IDL but < CRDL IDL: Instrument Detection Limit , Applies to dissolved form. 1468/lnor/kb 10/21/1999 ------------------- FISHERS ISLAND LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN SURFACE WATER SAMPLING RESULTS LEACHATE PARAMETERS SAMPLE 10 SURFACE WATER Reporting DATE OF COLLECTION 8/12/99 Limit UNITS (mg/I) (mall) Color (pllCo Units) 380 10 Alkalinity (as CaC03) 110 5 Ammonia (as N) 6.6 0.2 BOD 190 6 Bromide 4.15 0.02 Chemical Oxygen Demand 15 10 Chloride 20 5 Chromium ( VI ) U 0.01 Hardness (as CaC03) 240 4 Nitrate (as N) U 4 Phenols, total 0.1 0.1 Sulfate U 7 Total Organic Carbon 7 1 TDS 180 10 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) 120 0.9 QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected 1468/LEACH .xls/rp 10/1/99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )> "C "C CD ::J Q. -. >< ." I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 14681F0310804.DOC(Rl 0) APPENDIX F DATA VALIDATION REPORT FOR AUGUST 1999 SAMPLING EVENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX F Data Validation Four groundwater monitoring well samples and one surface water sample were collected on August 12, 1999 as part of the field investigation in support of the Landfill Closure Plan. The surface water and three of the groundwater samples were analyzed for Baseline parameters as listed in 6 NYCRR Part 360. The three groundwater samples, MW-2, MW-4 and MW-6, were analyzed for both total and dissolved metals due to the turbidity of the samples exceeding 50 NTUs. The other groundwater sample, MW-13, was analyzed for baseline volatile organic compounds only. Mitkem Corporation, a subcontractor to Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, performed sample analysis in accordance with USEPA SW-846 methods and NYSDEC QNQC requirements. The data package submitted by Mitkem has been reviewed in accordance with NYSDEC QNQC requirements. Twenty percent on the environmental sample data as well as all the QA data (calibrations, blanks, surrogates, spikes, etc.) have been validated yielding a "20% Validation" as required in 6 NYCRR Part 360. The findings of the data validation process are summarized below and the data validation forms are attached. All sample analyses were performed within the method specified holding times. Methylene chloride has been qualified as non-detect in all samples due to laboratory contamination. That is, the method blank associated with the samples contained methylene chloride and the sample concentrations were less than 5 times the concentration found in the blank. No problems were found with the data and all results are deemed valid and usable for environmental assessment purposes, as qualified above. .1468\FI01291O.DOQROl) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~p Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 I. Data Deliverable Requirements A. Legible Yes B. Paginated Yes C. Arranged in order Yes D. Consistent dates Yes E. Case Narrative Yes F. Chain-of-Custody Record Yes G. Sample Data Complete Yes H, Standard Date Complete Yes I. Raw QC Data Complete Yes Comments: Four groundwater samples and one surface water sample were collected at the Fisher's Island Landfill on 8/12/99 The groundwater samples were analyzed for baseline parameters with total and dissolved metals being analyzed for. The surface water sample was analyzed for volatile organics. CoD I p.,'~g J 'The_ 6I.L.k Cl..,\j...\Q.LJerl .0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOCI1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 II. Holding Times Date Date Date Holding Time Sample 1.0. Received Extracted Analyzed Exceeded? Field blank 8/13/99 8/19/99 No Surface water 8/13/99 8/19/99 No MW-2 8/13/99 8/19/99 No MW-4 8/13/99 8/19/99 No MW-6 8/13/99 8/19/99 No MW.13 8/13/99 8/19/99 No Trip blank 8/13/99 8/19/99 No +0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOCI2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Fraction: Voa laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 III. Tune Summary Tune File I.D. Number Acceptable? Comments 1. V5B4040 YES INITIAL 2. V5B4070 YES SAMPLES 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. t0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Fraction: VOA IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GC/MS) Date of Calibration: 8/18/99 A. Standard Data Files Standard 1 10: V5B4048 Cone: 5 Standard 2 10: V5B4045 Cone: 20 Standard 3 10: V5B4044 Cone: 50 Standard 4 10: V5B4043 Cone: 100 Standard 5 10: V5B4047 Cone: 200 B. 1. All SPCC met Criteria? Yes 2. Calculate a SPCC average RRF Comments: .0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOe\4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella Q! Fraction: VOA Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Date of calibration: 8/18/99 IV. Initial Calibration Summary (continued) 2. All CCC met Criteria? Yes Comments: Calculate a CCC % RSD C. 1. Was the tune for the initial calibration acceptable? Yes 2. Was the calibration conducted within 12 hours of the tune Yes Comments: D. Overall assessment of the initial calibration: (list the associated samples) Ok .0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOCIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ ~ Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Fraction: voa VI. Continuing Calibration Summary (GC/MS) Date of Initial Calibration:8/18/99 Date of Continuing Calibration: 8/19/99 A. 1. All SPCC met criteria? File ID:V5B4071 Yes Calculate a SPCC RRF Comments: 2. All CCC met criteria? Yes Calculate a CCC % D Comments: B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associated samples) ok +0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOCI6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~~ Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Fraction: VOA VIII. Internal Standard Area Summary (GC/MS) Were all internal standard peak areas within the contract limits? Yes If No, please note below Samole Internal Standard Outside Limits Amount Above Contract Reauirement Comments .0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~~ Fraction: Voa Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 IX. Blank Summary DatelTime of Analysis: 8/19/99 (VBLK5T) File ID:V5B4072A Compound Concentration Methylene chloride 2 ug/I ~ CROL Comments Methylene chloride has been qualified as non- detect in all samples due to laboratory (blank) contamination. < List the samples associated with this method blank. +0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.Docla I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Laboratory Name: Mitkem Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~~ Date of Review: 9/24/99 Fraction: Voa X. Surrogate Recovery Summary Were all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits? Yes If No, please note below. Sam ole Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Requirement +0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOCI10 Comments I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - ORGANICS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Fraction: voa Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 XI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplication Summary Sample ID: MW-2 Matrix: water Did the MS/MSD recovery data meet the contract recommended requirements? Yes If No, please note below. +0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ I. Holding times Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Date Date Date Holding Time Sample Received Dioested Analvzed Exceeded? Field blank 8/13/99 8/18&8/21 No Surface 8/13/99 8/18&8/21 No water MW-2 8/13/99 8/18&8/21 No MW-4 8/13/99 8/18 & 8/21 No MW-6 8/13/99 8/18 & 8/21 No MW-13 8/13/99 8/18 & 8/21 No +0020IFISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Laboratory Name: Mitkem Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Associated Samples: Date of Review: 9/24/99 II. Initial Calibration 1. Were all initial instrument calibrations performed? Yes Comments: 2. Were the initial calibration verification standards analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes Comments: 3. Were the initial calibration results within the control limits listed below? For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value Yes If "No", note analytes .0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella Q Q \' Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 Associated Samples: III. Continuing Calibration 1. Were the continuing calibration verification standards analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes Comments: 2. Were the continuing calibration results within the control limits listed below? For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value Yes If "No", note analytes +0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Laboratory Name: Mitkem Reviewer: R. Petrella Q~ \' Date of Review: 9/24/99 IV. Blank Summary A. Method Blanks 1 . Was a method blank prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes 2. Were all the analytes below the CRDL in the method blank? Yes Comments: B. Calibration Blanks 1. Were all initial and continuing calibration blanks analyzed at the contract specified frequency/ Yes 2. Were all the analytes below the CRDL in all the calibration blanks? Yes Comments: +0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella v:j... Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 V. Duplicate Analysis 1. Was a duplicate prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes Comments: 2. Were control limits for the relative percent differences (RPD) met for each analyte? Yes Comments: For sample values >5 times the CRDL, the RPD control limit is :t20%. For sample values >5 times the CRDL, the RPD control limit is :tCRDL. If sample results were outside of the control limits, all data associated with that duplicate sample should have been flagged with a "*". +0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella ~. Laboratory Name:Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 VI. Matrix Spike Analysis 1 . Was a matrix spike prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes Comments: 2. Were the matrix spike recoveries within the contract specified control limits (75-125%)? Yes If "No", note analytes Mercury had a %R=62.2% Data should have been flagged with "N" for analytes out of control limits. If the sample concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of four or more, no flag is required. .0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Laboratory Name: Mitkem Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Date of Review: 9/24/99 VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Summary 1. Was the ICP serial dilution analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Yes Comments: 2. tJere the serial dilution differences within the contract specified limits of =.W 10%? Yes Comments: 3. Was the ICP CRDL check standard analyzed at the contract specified frequency for the analytes required? Yes Comments: +0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Laboratory Name: Mitkem Reviewer: R. Petrella ~ Date of Review: 9/24/99 VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Summary (continued): 4. Was the ICP interference check sample analyzed at the contract specified frequency: Yes Comments: 5. 'fJere the ICP interference check sample results within the control limit of .=w-20% of the mean value? Yes If "No", not analytes .0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Fishers Island Reviewer: R. Petrella \). Laboratory Name: Mitkem Date of Review: 9/24/99 VIII. Laboratory Control Sample Analysis 1. Was a laboratory control sample analyzed at the contract required frequency? Yes Comments: 2. Were the percent recoveries within the control limits of 80-120% (except for Ag and Sb) for each analyte? Yes Comments: t0020\FISHERS ISLAND VALIDATION FORM.DOC\20