Page 10 - elsmere0584

Elsmere Canyon Final Draft Page iii
May, 1984

o The facility would have an ultimate life of over 200, years, if utility lines
are moved, assuming a 2000 ton/day waste input (Alternative 1). The life

would be about one half of that (100 years) without the movement of
utility lines (Alternative 2). The site would have 12 years -of !ife using
only the center parcel (Alternative 3).

o There appears to be no geotechnical, geological, or hydrogeologi<:al_ factors
mitigating the suitability of the site. The pertinent geotechnical findings
are as follows:
I
• Sufficient cover material can be generated on site through excavation

and ripping.
Ill The underlying groundwater is insignificant in quantity, likely is

contaminated by naturally occurring deposits of tar and oil, and would
Ill have little beneficial use. Based _ upon known information the site

• Natural slope stability appears to be relatively good, except for the
should not pose a threat to contamination of usable groundwater •

•
This area is not considered
dip-slope area south of Fremont Peak.
.. for development at this time.
There are no known active faults within the property which would
preclude development of the site as a disposal site for MSW.

Ill o Further investigation is necessary to determine if sufficient low- -
.. permeability material is on-site for final cover and liner purposes •

However, the climate and groundwater conditions are such that other
design methods should be available to preclude the need for low
II permeability materials.

- o A capital investment of about $200,000 is needed to support perm it

About $3 to 4 _ million of
procurement activities (engineering, EI R, etc.).
II equipment for each of the three alternatives. An undetermined amount
capital would be needed for site improvements, property acquisition, and

- would be needed eventually to relocate utility lines for Alternative 1.

-

---·----·-------·---------·---------···-----