a global professional services company

creative thinking. custom solutions.

5724 Summer Trees Drive | Memphis, Tennessee 38134| Telephone 901-372-7962 | Facsimile 901-372-2454 | www.ensafe.com

January 11, 2016

Mr. Bryan Leamons, P.E.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
Solid Waste Management Division
5301 Northshore Drive
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118
Re:

Closure Design Review

Construction Documents for NABORS Landfill Closure
Three Brothers, Arkansas
AFIN: #03-00051
Permits: 0249-S1-R2, 0249-S4
Design Professional Services Contract 4600021812
EnSafe Project Code: 0888818233

Dear Mr. Leamons:

EnSafe is pleased to submit this letter report on our design review of construction documents
for the NABORS landfill closure. It presents our findings and recommendations, which were
communicated verbally to Mr. Clark McWilliams and you during an informal debrief meeting on
January 7, 2016.
The purpose of the closure design review is to ensure fiscally responsible, proper closure of the
inactive landfill units at the NABORS landfill site. As specified in the scope of work provided by
ADEQ, our scope of work consisted of:

Evaluating the design to ensure compliance with Arkansas Regulation 22 closure

requirements (including groundwater evaluation of corrective measures).

Evaluating the design documents to assess correction of landfill deficiencies in

preparation for closure under existing permit options (waste overfill, inoperative leachate
collection system components, inadequate access roads, etc.).

Reviewing the design documents to ensure construction costs are minimized while
achieving adequate closure and minimizing post closure care costs (i.e., closure is
designed and can be constructed to function reliably and with minimum day-to-day
care).

On January 5 through 7, 2016, Tom Green of EnSafe reviewed closure design documents
compiled by ADEQ in your offices in North Little Rock. The files provided by ADEQ included
correspondence, news clippings, design criteria reports, and progressive versions (50%, 75%,
100%) of design plans. In addition, on January 6, Mr. McWilliams and you arranged and
engineering | environment | health & safety | technology

Mr. Bryan Leamons

January 11, 2016
Page 2

participated with Mr. Green in a conference call with Mr. Floyd Cotter and Mr. Dillon Baird of
SCS Aquaterra, the firm retained by ADEQ to prepare the design, to assist our understanding of
elements of the project.
EnSafe focused its review on the most pertinent documents, in particular, the following
prepared by SCS Aquaterra:

Design Criteria Report, Design Professional Services, Closure of Inactive NABORS Landfill

Project Manual Specifications, Closure of Inactive N.A.B.O.R.S. Landfills (Project

Engineering Drawings, titled Closure of Inactive NABORS Landfills, November 20, 2015

Engineers Estimate, November 2015

(Design Criteria Report), April 2015

Manual), November 17, 2015

Findings and Recommendations

In EnSafes opinion, the design as formulated in the Design Criteria Report and presented in the
Project Manual and 100% Engineering Drawings complies with Arkansas Regulation 22 closure
requirements, namely:

The capping of Class 1 wastes with a final cover meeting Reg.22.428. Use of a
geosynthetic clay liner in lieu of 18 inches of low permeability clay (1 x 10-7 cm/sec) is a
proven alternative that is cost effective when suitable clay soil is unavailable at or near
the landfill. Its equivalency was documented by SCS Aquaterra in the Design Criteria
Report. The cover system with its integral 40-mil LLDPE geomembrane helps minimize
leachate generation and gas migration.

The capping of Class 4 wastes with a final cover meeting Reg.22.624.

The design addresses correction of identified deficiencies:

Waste overfill wastes in Class 1 areas 1-2 and 1-3 and in the Class 4 area will be
relocated within the respective permitted footprints and airspaces.

Inoperative leachate collection system components leachate collection sumps are

being upgraded with new pumps and sumps with pumps are being added, where
needed. New force mains will convey leachate from the sumps to a new central
leachate tank farm. From the tank farm, leachate can be pumped to a proposed gasfired evaporator, re-injected into the landfill, or hauled to an offsite facility for treatment
and disposal.

Inadequate access roads the main access road will be improved and the central
leachate tank farm will eliminate the need for tanker trucks to access leachate sumps at
the perimeter of the fill areas.
Perimeter access roads will be upgraded to
accommodate maintenance vehicles.

Mr. Bryan Leamons

January 11, 2016
Page 3

Control of gas migration capping with a system that includes a geomembrane layer
and the installation of an active gas collection system will minimize the migration of
landfill gases beyond the waste footprints and reduce the concentration of water soluble
volatile substances (volatile organic compounds, etc.) in leachate. The proposed flare
will reduce the emissions of methane and non-methane organic compounds to the
atmosphere.

The proposed design offers a reasonable approach to minimizing long-term project costs
(construction costs plus post-closure operating and maintenance costs) while achieving
regulatory requirements and site-specific closure objectives. The selected final cover systems
are designed in accordance with generally accepted practice for side slopes (3 horizontal: 1
vertical or flatter) and surface water management (benches or terraces at suitable intervals
leading to down chutes) to minimize erosion. Installation of the final caps should lead to a
decrease in leachate generation and its associated disposal costs, although the actual quantity
is difficult to predict accurately.
On the subject of construction costs, our review revealed several inconsistencies and
ambiguities in the plans and project manual that could create uncertainty among bidding
contractors and consequently increase construction bid prices. These are noted in detail in the
attached red-lined copy of these documents. Specific findings are described as follows.
The names used to describe the various soil layers are not consistent. For example:

Structural fill is defined in Section 310513 to be free of stones having any dimension
greater than 2 inches, but is included in Section 329113 as one of the soils that is to be
screened to remove particles larger than 1 inch.

The Section 310513 specifications for Barrier Soil materials state at paragraph 2.3.A that
they are for the construction of the compacted soil layer, which seems to be intended
to define the low permeability soil layer of the Class 4 cap shown in the Engineering
Drawings.

The terms protective layer and grading layer are used, but their soil characteristics
are not defined other than that protective cover soil is included in Section 329113 as a
soil to be screened.

Temporary Leachate Disposal The bid form asks for a lump sum price to provide leachate
disposal from the existing leachate collection system until the new leachate collection system is
operational. The volume of leachate generated during construction will be a function of many
factors, several of which - especially the weather, are beyond the control of the contractor.
Therefore, it would appear more appropriate for this item to be bid, measured and paid on a
volumetric basis (by the gallon or tanker truck load).
We note that the cost and basis included in the Engineers Estimate ($233,080 for 29,000
gallons per week for 1 year) equate to a unit cost of $0.15 per gallon, while a cost of $0.26 per
gallon was presented in the Design Criteria Report. We understand ADEQ is currently paying
approximately $0.19 per gallon plus a handling fee.

Mr. Bryan Leamons

January 11, 2016
Page 4

Leachate Evaporator On the subject of long-term leachate disposal we recognize there are
many variables, including the availability and cost of offsite disposal, that make evaluation of
alternatives a somewhat subjective process. We further recognize that the Design Criteria
Report was completed in April 2015 and the latest Engineers Estimate in November 2015, but
we suggest that the comparison between offsite disposal and onsite evaporation presented in
the Design Criteria Report be re-visited if it is now believed that the cost of offsite disposal will
vary much from $0.26 per gallon. Preliminary calculations (see attached spreadsheet) indicate
the comparison is sensitive to this unit cost and the long-term cost savings of an evaporator
may not be realized if offsite disposal is and remains available for $0.20 or less per gallon and
the installed cost of an evaporator with its foundation equals or exceeds its estimated value of
$1,050,000.
Soil Screening The estimated quantity of 193,600 cubic yards approximates the volume of inplace soil needed for intermediate cover and the various soil layers of final cover, adjusted for
the re-use of 36,000 cubic yards of topsoil in area 1-2, but this may be merely a coincidence.
Measurement and Payment defines this item as soil prior to screening, but does not specify if it
is to be measured as excavated from the borrow area or as loosely placed into the screen. The
estimated quantity, definition and basis of measurement of this item should be reviewed and
revised, as appropriate.
Waste relocation This work is identified in the Unit Price Bid Form as three discrete lump
sums, one each for areas 1-2, 1-3, and 4. The specifications (Section 312324) state this work is
to be done in accordance with applicable sections of Arkansas Regulation 22 and that a daily
cover layer 12 inches thick is to be applied over exposed surfaces from which waste has been
removed and waste surfaces newly created by the placement of relocated waste. The
specifications further state that relocated waste is to be compacted by two to three passes with
a sheepsfoot roller.
We note that Regulation 22 calls for daily cover to be a minimum thickness of 6 inches rather
than 12 inches. Regulation 22 is silent as to the thickness at which waste can be placed prior to
compaction; we suggest the designer consider specifying 3 feet or less. We also question
whether two or three passes of a sheepsfoot roller will provide adequate compaction to return
the waste to its pre-excavation volume or to provide sufficient stability when construction of
intermediate and final covers are to commence in days or weeks rather than in months or
years. We suggest the designer review this matter and revise the specifications as deemed
appropriate.
EnSafe did not independently verify the estimated quantities given in the Engineers Estimate or
the airspace available for waste in each landfill area. We deduce that the quantities to be
relocated are of the existing waste/soil mixture (assumed to be re-compacted to the same or
lesser volume) and do NOT include the daily cover required by Section 312324. We suggest the
designer verify that available airspace will accommodate the relocated wastes plus appropriate
volumes of daily cover.
Interim (or Intermediate) Cover The plans define this layer as being 12 inches thick. The Bid
Form items 41 and 49 listed as Prepare Subgrade are shown to be priced by the acre and the
Engineers Estimate is approximately $2,100 per acre. In Section 012010 Measurement and

CALCULATION SHEET
CLIENT

ADEQ

PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY

PROJECT
SUBJECT

Closure of Inactive NABORS Landfills

Engineer's Estimate Range

REVIEWED BY
APPROVED BY

Item
No.

Description

Mobilization / Demobilization
Provide and Maintain Stormwater/Erosion Control
2
Structures
3 Construction Quality Assurance
4 Provide Temporary Leachate Disposal
Sedimentation Pond/Dam
5 Clear Existing Vegetation in Pond Basin

Estimated
Quantity
1

PAGE
27214218.01
DRS
DATE
DMB

Units

Text and cells in RED indicate review comments by EnSafe, January 2016

1 of 2
11/12/2015

DATE
DATE

Note: Item 4 pricing equates to approximately $0.15 per gallon.

11/13/2015

Unit Price

Estimated Price

LS

84,000.00 $

1
1

LS
LS

$
$

912,500.00 $
223,080.00 $

AC

7,668.00

23,004.00 RSMeans Line Number 311110100350.

Area from AutoCAD Delineating Cleared Area for Basin and Dam.

7,260

CY

6.53

47,407.80 RSMeans Line Number 312316465420.

Volume Estimated by Excavating 1-2 feet from the Basin Area.

7,000

CY

3.69

25,830.00 RSMeans Line Number 312323145440 (place fill) + 312323240300 (compaction)

Volume Calculation from AutoCAD.

LS

35,000.00

35,000.00 SCS Estimate.

Items depicted on Construction Drawings.

36,000

CY

2.69

96,840.00 RSMeans Line Number 311413230700.

LS

1,470,000.00

1,470,000.00 2015 Waste Relocation Bid. ($10/CY)

Volume Calculation using AutoCAD, 147,000 CY.

LS

458,400.00 $

458,400.00 2015 Waste Relocation Bid. ($8/CY)

Volume Calculation using AutoCAD, 57,300 CY.

LS

273,000.00 $

273,000.00 2015 Waste Relocation Bid. ($10/CY)

Volume Calculation using AutoCAD, 27,300 cubic yard.

LS

7,500.00 $

Vertical Gas Extraction Well Drilling and Installation

1,208

LF

158.00

190,864.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Total depth for all the gas wells

Provide and Install LFG Wellheads

10'x10' Wellbore Seal
Provide and Install 4" HDPE LFG Piping
Provide and Install 8" HDPE LFG Piping
Provide and Install 12" HDPE LFG Piping
Provide and Install 12" Butterfly Valve
Provide and Install 8" Butterfly Valve
Provide and Install HDPE Access Riser with Fiberglass
22
Lid
23 Provide and Install HDPE Condensate Knockout
Provide and Install Dual Containment Condensate
24
Sump with Pump
Provide and Install 4" HDPE Condensate and 2" Air
25
Lines
Provide and Install 10HP Rotary Screw Air
26
Compressor, Concrete Pad, and 10'x10' Shed
27 Provide and Install 24" CMP Road Crossing
Provide and Install Candlestick Flare, Skid, Electrical,
28
and Pad
Leachate Disposal System
29 Provide and Install Leachate Evaporator
Provide and Install 10,500 gallon Fiberglass Tanks
30
and Valve Connections
Provide and Install Concrete Secondary Containment
31
and Evaporator Pad
Provide and Install 2"x4" Dual Contained HDPE
32
Forcemain

37
21
1,625
10,050
770
4
19

EA
EA
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

600.00
630.00
24.00
33.00
48.00
3,300.00
2,200.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22,200.00
13,230.00
39,000.00
331,650.00
36,960.00
13,200.00
41,800.00

Total number of gas wells

Gas wells with less than 16' of solid pipe
Calculated total length of all 4'' gas pipe plus 10%
Calculated total length of all 8'' gas pipe plus 10%
Calculated total length of all 12" gas pipe plus 10%
Total number of 12" Butterfly Valves
Total number of 8" Butterfly Valves

10

EA

1,300.00 $

13,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Total number of Access Risers

EA

8,500.00 $

25,500.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Total number of Condensate Knockouts

EA

25,000.00 $

100,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

4,025

LF

12.00

48,300.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Calculated total length of Forcemain and Air Lines plus 10%

LS

30,000.00 $

30,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Only one compressor needed

EA

60.00

LS

EA

1,000,000.00

EA

10,500.00

210

CY

800.00

168,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Designed to hold 110% of available tank storage

7,500

LF

56.00

420,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

Calculated total length of Forcemain

Excavate Soil to Sedimentation Pond Base Elevations

Place Structural Fill for Dam

Install Outlet Structure, Discharge Pipe, Overflow
8
Weir, and Riprap
Waste Relocation
Strip grub and stockpile organic containing soil from
9
Area 1-2
Excavate and Relocate Waste/Soil Mix from Area 110
2
Excavate and Relocate/Regrade Waste/Soil Mix in
11
Area 1-3
Excavate and Relocate/Regrade Waste/Soil Mix in
12
Class 4
Gas Collection and Control System
13 Driller Mobilization
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

757,900.00 5% of Total Project Cost.

Basis of Quantity

757,900.00

Unit Price Source

LS

84,000.00 Estimated to be $1,200/acre over approximately 70 acres (LFs and borrow area).
912,500.00 SCS estimate of $2500 per day.
223,080.00 SCS estimate of $4000 per week for hauling, $0.01/gal disposal for 52 weeks.

7,500.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

300.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

400,000.00 $

400,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

1,000,000.00 Quote from John Zink
84,000.00 Quote from KBH Corp.

One time event

One time event
Assume to require CQA for 12 months (365 days)
Estimated 29,000 gallons per week for 1 year.

Area 1-2.

One time event

Total number of Condensate Sumps

Total number of road crossing by gas lines

Only one flare needed
Only one evaporator needed
Calculated to handle 110% of predicted leachate and condensate

33

Provide and Install Air Release Valves and

Protective Concrete Vaults

11

EA

7,000.00

34

Provide and Install 1.0 HP Leachate Pumps (Includes

control panels, lines, and 5 spare pumps)

14

EA

17,000.00

EA

30,000.00

60,000.00 2015 Quote from Manufacturers and RSMEans Line Number 221113781132

20

EA

1,000.00

20,000.00 2015 Quote from Manufacturer (Asahi-America)

220

LF

12.00 $

2,640.00 SCS Estimate

300

LF

31.29 $

9,387.00 RSMeans Line Number 312319201400

LS

30,000.00

193,600

CY

6.35

1,229,360.00 RSMeans Line Number 329113233550.

1.5 feet of soil to be screened for final cover. Includes 40% spoils to be screened out.

66,147
33,074
1,785,960

CY
CY
SF

$
$
$

7.68
7.68
0.60

$
$
$

508,006.40 RSMeans Line Number 312213200250. Similar to protective layer.

254,008.32 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)
1,071,576.00 2014 Landfill Cell Construction Bid.

Volume Calculation using AutoCAD

1,785,960

SF

0.80

1,428,768.00 SCS estimate based on 2014 bid for similar LF closure project.

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

45 Provide and Install Geocomposite Drainage Layer

1,785,960

SF

0.56

1,000,137.60 SCS estimade based on a 2012 bid for a similar LF closure project

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

46 Excavate and Backfill Geosynthetics Anchor Trench

8,310

LF

9.00

74,790.00 SCS estimate based on 2012 bid for a simila LF closure project

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

66,148
33,074

CY
CY

$
$

7.68
7.68

$
$

10,971

CY

7.68

16,940

CY

9.22

156,186.80 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)

5,646

CY

7.68

43,361.28 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)

16,000

LF

12.00

192,000.00 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)

Calculated total length of Terraces

2,700

LF

100.00

270,000.00 SCS Estimate.

Calculated total length of Down Chutes

10

EA

3,700.00

80
7,800
1
1
1
30

AC
LF
LS
LS
LS
AC

$
$
$
$
$
$

1,500.00
30.00
100,000.00
300,000.00
100,000.00
2,090.95

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,000
162
1

LF
LF
EA

$
$
$

15.00
70.00
16,000.00

$
$
$

Total:

Provide and Install Vertical Leachate Manholes with

Pumps (Includes Panels and Lines)
Provide 2"x4" Dual Contained Check Valves
36
(Includes Forcemain and Condensate Knockout)

35

37 Heat Tracing and Insulation for Exposed Forcemain

Provide Protective CMP at Flare Pad and Road
Crossings
39 Demolition
Class 1 Final Cover System
Soil Screening (Includes material for Class 1 and
40
Class 4)
41 Prepare Subgrade (Interim Cover)
42 Install 6-inch Grading Layer
43 Provide and Install Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Provide and Install LLDPE 40 mil Textured
44
Geomembrane
38

47 Install 12-inch Protective Cover Layer

48 Install 6-inch Vegetative Layer
Class 4 Final Cover System
49 Prepare Subgrade (Interim Cover)
Install 18-inch Compacted Soil Layer (Max.
50
Permeability 1 x 10 -5 cm/sec)
51 Install 6-inch Vegetative Layer
Stormwater Controls/Site Clean-up
52 Install Tack-on Terraces
53 Provide and Install HDPE Down Chutes
Provide and Install Energy Dissipaters (Includes
Geotextile and Rip-Rap)
55 Seeding, Fertilizing, Mulching
56 Provide and Install Perimeter Fencing
57 Install Three Phase Power
58 Access Road Construction/Rehabilitation
59 Ditch Construction
60 Soil Borrow Area Grading
Leachate Recirculation System
61 4" HDPE Forcemain Piping
62 Leachate Injection Port
63 Leachate Recirculation Pump
54

77,000.00 SCS Estimate.

Placed as needed along the Forcemain

238,000.00 2015 Quote from Manufacturer (GunnCO)

30,000.00 RSMeans Line Number 024113175400 and SCS Estimate

508,016.64 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)

254,008.32 NABORS Closure Construction Cost Estimate (March 2013)
84,254.72 RSMeans Line Number 312213200250. Similar to protective layer.

Total number of leachate sumps

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

Volume Calculation based on 3D surface area using AutoCAD.

Volume Calculation based on 3D surface area using AutoCAD.

Area Calculation using AutoCAD

Multiplied final cover surface area (from AutoCAD) by 1.5 feet.
Volume Calculation using AutoCAD

37,000.00 RSMeans Line Numbers 334626100100 and 313713100300

120,000.00
234,000.00
100,000.00
300,000.00
100,000.00
62,728.50

SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

SCS Estimate.
Estimate from North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Inc
SCS Estimate.
SCS Estimate.
RSMeans Line Number 312213200250.

30,000.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator

11,340.00 SCS Engineers LFG Price Calculator
16,000.00 SCS Estimate.
15,915,035.38 Total if Items 41 and 49 are adjusted as noted.
$
$

15,398,021.67 previous total

517,013.71 Potential change in cost

Area Calculation using AutoCAD plus additional for borrow area and sed pond.
Calculated total length of Fencing in AutoCAD
1 lump sum item.
1 lump sum item.
1 lump sum item.
Area Calculation using AutoCAD
Calculated total length of Forcemain from AutoCAD.
Total length for all injection ports
One pump needed

SensitivityofAlternativesComparisontoEvaporatorandHauling&DisposalCostsPRELIMINARY

Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

Table5CostAnalysisofLeachateEvaporatorvsHauling
(aspresentedinDesignCriteriaReport)
CumulativeEstimated
CumulativeEstimated
EstimatedLFG EstimatedLeachate
LeachateEvaporator
HaulingDisposalCost
Flow(scfm)
Volume(gallons)
Cost
401
1,500,000 $ 918,500 $ 390,000
366
1,368,158 $ 972,500 $ 745,721
333
1,247,904 $ 1,026,500 $ 1,070,176
304
1,138,219 $ 1,080,500 $ 1,366,113
277
1,038,176 $ 1,134,500 $ 1,636,039
253
946,925 $ 1,188,500 $ 1,882,239
231
863,696 $ 1,242,500 $ 2,106,800
211
787,781 $ 1,296,500 $ 2,311,623
192
718,539 $ 1,350,500 $ 2,498,443
175
655,383 $ 1,404,500 $ 2,668,843

Hauling&DisposalUnitCost,$/gallon:
AnnualEvaporatorO&MCost

Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

$ (528,500)
$ (226,779)
$ 43,676
$ 285,613
$ 501,539
$ 693,739
$ 864,300
$ 1,015,123
$ 1,147,943
$ 1,264,343

0.26
$ 54,000

Table5ACostAnalysisofLeachateEvaporatorvsHauling
(withhauling&disposalcostof$0.20/gallon))
CumulativeEstimated
CumulativeEstimated
EstimatedLFG EstimatedLeachate
LeachateEvaporator
HaulingDisposalCost
Flow(scfm)
Volume(gallons)
Cost
401
1,500,000 $ 918,500 $ 300,000
366
1,368,158 $ 972,500 $ 573,632
333
1,247,904 $ 1,026,500 $ 823,212
304
1,138,219 $ 1,080,500 $ 1,050,856
277
1,038,176 $ 1,134,500 $ 1,258,491
253
946,925 $ 1,188,500 $ 1,447,876
231
863,696 $ 1,242,500 $ 1,620,616
211
787,781 $ 1,296,500 $ 1,778,172
192
718,539 $ 1,350,500 $ 1,921,880
175
655,383 $ 1,404,500 $ 2,052,956

Hauling&DisposalUnitCost,$/gallon:
AnnualEvaporatorO&MCost

CumulativeCost
Savings

CumulativeCost
Savingsof
Evaporator
$ (618,500)
$ (398,868)
$ (203,288)
$ (29,644)
$ 123,991
$ 259,376
$ 378,116
$ 481,672
$ 571,380
$ 648,456

$ 0.20
$ 54,000

Table5BCostAnalysisofLeachateEvaporatorvsHauling
(withevaporatorcostof$1.05millionandhauling&disposalcostof$0.20/gallon))
CumulativeCost
CumulativeEstimated
CumulativeEstimated
EstimatedLFG EstimatedLeachate
Savingsof
LeachateEvaporator
HaulingDisposalCost
Flow(scfm)
Volume(gallons)
Evaporator
Cost
401
1,500,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 300,000 $ (750,000)
366
1,368,158 $ 1,104,000 $ 573,632 $ (530,368)
333
1,247,904 $ 1,158,000 $ 823,212 $ (334,788)
304
1,138,219 $ 1,212,000 $ 1,050,856 $ (161,144)
277
1,038,176 $ 1,266,000 $ 1,258,491 $ (7,509)
253
946,925 $ 1,320,000 $ 1,447,876 $ 127,876
231
863,696 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,620,616 $ 246,616
211
787,781 $ 1,428,000 $ 1,778,172 $ 350,172
192
718,539 $ 1,482,000 $ 1,921,880 $ 439,880
175
655,383 $ 1,536,000 $ 2,052,956 $ 516,956

Hauling&DisposalUnitCost,$/gallon:
$ 0.20
AnnualEvaporatorO&MCost
$ 54,000
EvaporatorCostperEngineer'sEstimateof$1,000,000plus$50,000forfoundationpad.

Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

Table5CCostAnalysisofLeachateEvaporatorvsHauling
(withevaporatorcostof$1.05millionandhauling&disposalcostof$0.15/gallon))
CumulativeCost
CumulativeEstimated
CumulativeEstimated
EstimatedLFG EstimatedLeachate
Savingsof
LeachateEvaporator
HaulingDisposalCost
Flow(scfm)
Volume(gallons)
Evaporator
Cost
401
1,500,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 225,000 $ (825,000)
366
1,368,158 $ 1,104,000 $ 430,224 $ (673,776)
333
1,247,904 $ 1,158,000 $ 617,409 $ (540,591)
304
1,138,219 $ 1,212,000 $ 788,142 $ (423,858)
277
1,038,176 $ 1,266,000 $ 943,869 $ (322,131)
253
946,925 $ 1,320,000 $ 1,085,907 $ (234,093)
231
863,696 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,215,462 $ (158,538)
211
787,781 $ 1,428,000 $ 1,333,629 $ (94,371)
192
718,539 $ 1,482,000 $ 1,441,410 $ (40,590)
175
655,383 $ 1,536,000 $ 1,539,717 $ 3,717

Hauling&DisposalUnitCost,$/gallon:
$ 0.15
AnnualEvaporatorO&MCost
$ 54,000
EvaporatorCostperEngineer'sEstimateof$1,000,000plus$50,000forfoundationpad.