HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03131990 - 2.4 TU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
s
r
'''F Sara M. Hoffman f _ . ,Cm����..}}tra
Solid Waste ManagerCJVJIa
n
DATE: March 13, 1990 CO u /
1 X1``17
sr�coiiN'�
SUBJECT: Status Report on Preliminary Cost Analysis of
Marsh Canyon and Keller Canyon Landfills
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the status report on preliminary cost analysis of Marsh Canyon and Keller
Canyon Landfills and direct Staff to continue to work with the applicants to
determine costs, as the landfills reach final design and franchise stages.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
At its February 27, 1990 meeting, the Board requested Staff to analyze the costs
of the Marsh Canyon and Keller Canyon landfills.
Both landfill applicants were requested to provide cost information according to .
a standard reporting format provided by Staff, with specified assumption
parameters. Data submittals started on Wednesday and were not complete until
Thursday, March 9, 1990. Consequently, the time available for Staff review was
minimal. In some cases, the data presented by the applicants was
irreconcilable, due to varying assumptions and/or costing methodologies. In
other cases, reliable cost data is dependent upon reaching a more final design
stage.
This analysis . provides a very good overview of the cost parameters for solid
waste. More detailed analysis will be possible over time. Costing areas are
divided into 10 categories: Collection, Transportation, Transfer Station, Land,
"Soft," Operations, Off-Site Improvements, Construction and On-Site
Improvements, Closure/Post-Closure and Regulatory/Program Costs. Staff
developed the data for Collection, Transfer Station and Off-Site Improvements.
Deloitte-Touche . prepared Transportation, based upon data provided by the
applicants. Costs for all other categories are directly from applicant
submittals, except as noted. Assumptions and data sources are noted in
footnotes.
Cost, environmental acceptability and technical adequacy are three important
criteria in evaluating the landfills. The Environmental Impact Reports
thoroughly analyzed environmental and technical issues. This cost analysis is
preliminary since it is not based upon the "final design" for the landfills;
such design will reflect the requirements of various regional and state regula-
tory agencies. The Board will receive detailed cost information on each land-
fill during the franchise review process. The Conditions of Approval for each
landfill state that land use permits will be operational only if and when the
Board grants a franchise for the landfill (see Conditions of Approval, No. 4.2) .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD y OMMITTEE .
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)'
ACTION OF BOARD ON O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MI NIXES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED �l. ` 3 7 f O
County Counsel -
Keller Canyon Landfill (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Marsh Canyon Landfill (Via CDD)
H5/cost.bo
M382/7-83 BY G( -,DEPUTY
March 13, 1990
1'
PRELIMINARY
SOLID WASTE COST ANALYSIS
Numerous questions have been raised on:: the relative cost advantages of the
Keller Canyon and Marsh Canyon Landfill proposals. At this time, both sites are
in a preliminary design phase. Consequently, any costs must be regarded as very
tentative. Individual site design characteristics also affect costs greatly.
To give the Board of Supervisors and the public a better perspective on the
landfill cost issues, the Board directed staff to prepare an analysis of costs.
In many areas, data is available that allows a comparison of costs by landfill
(where assumptions do not vary widely and most of the cost elements have been
determined) . These areas of cost include:
Collection Costs
Transfer Station Costs
Transportation Costs
Land Costs
"Soft" Costs
Operations Costs
Off-Site Improvements Costs
In some cost areas, the applicants submitted cost data based on assumptions or
costing methodologies that could not be reconciled at this time. In other cost
areas, design is just too preliminary to determine costs. Consequently, direct
comparisons are not possible at this time. These cost areas include:
Construction and On-Site Improvement Costs
Closure/Post-Closure Costs
Regulatory and Program Costs
ATTACHMENTS: Keller Canyon Data Submittal
Marsh Canyon Data Submittal
i
a
yf
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
COLLECTION COSTS (c)
KELLER MARSH
Cost Element CANYON CANYON
Collection Costs (a) $90.00/ton '$90.00/ton
Curbside Recycling (b) $ 6.70/ton $ 6.70/ton
(a) Assumes that 15�/month residential collection is equivalent to $1.00/ton
and average collection cost (excludes disposal) of $13.50/month per
residential household. Based on average incremental disposal costs derived
from the 2/15/90 Rate-Setting Analysis by Central Sanitary District for
Valley Waste Disposal. This is no change in current rates.
(b) Assumes $1.00/month cost per residential household and conversion of
15¢/month equivalent to $1.00/ton. Curbside collection programs are being
established. '
(c) Additional costs for collection such as city or sanitary district franchise
fees and assessments for the closure of old landfills not included.
Note: Data developed by Staff-
-2-
N
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
" TRANSFER STATION COSTS
Keller Marsh
Cost Element Canyon Canyon
WEST COUNTY
Capital Costs/Year (a) 2,489,000 2,489,000
Operations/Year (b) 5,860,400 5,860,400
Tons/Year (c) 254,800 254,800
Cost/Ton 32.77 32.77
CENTRAL COUNTY
Capital Costs/Year (a) 2,489,000 2,489,000
Operations/Year (b) 12,558,000 12,558,000
Tons/Year (c) 546,000 546,000
Cost/Ton 27.59 27.59
EAST COUNTY
Capital Costs/Year (a) 1,742,000 1,742,000
Operations/Year (b) 3,348,800 3,348,800
Tons/Year (c) 145,600 145,600
Cost/Ton 34.96 34.96
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST/TON (d) 30.08 30.08
(a) Assumes capital costs of $25 million for West County (Richmond Sanitary
preliminary design estimate); $25 million for Central County (Acme Transfer
Station 1987 EIR costs, escalated) ; and $17.5 million for East County
(estimate based on- relative size) . Assumes financing at 9% interest,
repaid over 20 years, 1 payment per year, amortization over 25 years and
25-year life of transfer station. Assumes no transfer vehicle costs
(included with transportation costs) . Assumes no differences in capital or
operating costs resulting from differences in travel distances, avoiding
peak hour traffic or landfill operating times.
(b) Assumes $23/ton operations, including profit (based upon costs of Acme
Interim Transfer Station) . Assumes 7 day/week operations, with West County
at 700 tons/day, Central County at 1,500 tons/day and East County at 400
tons/day.
(c) Assumes tonnages noted in (b) .
(d) Weighted average according to percentage of total tonnage (946,400) : West
County 27%; Central County 58%;. and East County 15%.
Note: Data developed by Staff
-3-
i
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
l
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Keller Marsh
Canyon (a) Canyon (b)
WEST_ COUNTY/Year $1,555,900 $3,029,300
CENTRAL COUNTY/Year $1,822,600 $4,328,000
EAST COUNTY/Year $ 417,500 $ 942,400
TOTAL $3,796,000 $8,299,700
(a) Keller: Annual transportation costs of $3,796,000 compare to CH2M Hill's
estimated transportation estimated transportation costs (restricted hours)
of $3,773,000. The two estimates are similar because assumptions used by
CH2M Hill have been incorporated in this analysis. This analysis goes
further to estimate the transportation costs from each part of the County
(see attached chart) .
(b) Marsh: Annual transportation costs of $8,299,700 compare to an estimate of
$8,155,000 determined by using Waste Management, Inc. estimated unit costs.
Details of the analysis are based on other cost information presented by
the applicant and industry comparable operating costs (see attached chart) .
(a) & (b) Assumes restricted operating hours of 7:00 am to 7:30 pm for Keller
and 7:00 am to 8:30 pm for Marsh.
Note: Analysis by Deloitte-Touche using data in applicant submittals except
variable and operating costs, which are based on comparable hauling
operations. All costs are preliminary, subject to further refinement.
-4-
^
TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS AND [OST DETAIL
KELLER+
------ ' �e�� Total
. ����
.�
miles 57 24 9
I7tona/8ay 700 I,500 400
tons/truck 22 22 22
#tzipa required 32 69 19
miles/yr 665~760 684,440 62,415 1,332,615
tons/yr 255,500 547,500 I46,000 949,008
too � �lea/yr 14,563,500 13,140,000 1,314,000 29,817,500
#tznoka required 13 16 4
miles/day I^824 1,656 I71
cost/truck $I30,000 $130,000 $I30,000
capital costs $1,690,000 $2,080,000 $520,000
6
amort pd 6 6 '
cap cost/yr $281,667 $346,667 $86,667
op costs/yr $988,000 $1,216,000 $304,800
variable costo $286,277 $259,909 $26,838
-__-_-_--_-_-_-____-_-_--_-_---_----_-__-
totaI cost/yr $1,555,943 $1,822,576 $417,505 $3,796,024
cost/mile $2'34 $3'02 $6.69
cost/ton $6,09 $3.33 $2.86
000t/(tuo^mile) $0.11 $0,14 $0.34
variable costs est,
- fuel $0,25 $/mile
- tire $0,18 $/mile
operating est.
- insurance $6,000'00 &/truch
- main. $25,000'00 $/truob
- labor $54,000'00 $/trncb
'
MARSH !
miles 117 84 54
tons/day 700 1,500 400
tons/truck 22 22 22 �
#tripo required 32 69 19
miles/yr 1,366,560 2,1I5,540 374,490 3,856,590
tona/yr255,500 547~500 146,000 949,000
ton miles/yr 29,893,500 45,990,000 7,884,000 83,767,500
#trucko required 25 35 8
O26
] 74� S 796 l
miles/day ' " "
cost/truck $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
capital costs $3,250,000 $4,550,000 $1,040,000
6 6 6
amort pd
cap cost/yr $541,667 $758,333 $173,333
op noat/2z' $1,900,000 $2,660,000 $680,088
variable $587,621 $909,682 $93,623
-----------------------------------------
totaI cost/yr $3,039,287 $4,328,016 $946,956 $8,299,667
cost/mile $3.22 $2,05 . $2.53
cost/ton $1I'86 $7'91 $6.49
000t' (tou*mile) $0.10 $0.89 $0,12
-5-
' 1
v
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
LAND COSTS
Keller Marsh
Cost Element Canyon Canyon
Project Site 6,001,400 (a) 5,013,000 (b)
Mitigation Land 3,722,200 (c) 2,486,000 (d)
Off-Site Improvements -0- (e) undet. (e)
(a) Keller: The 2,628-acre site includes the 1,622-acre Primary Project Site
and the 1,006 Special Buffer Area. Average land cost is calculated at
$3,700 per acre.
(b) Marsh: The site is 1,123 acres. Average land cost is calculated at $4,464
per acre. This includes acreage for water extension reservoir. site and
wetlands mitigation around sedimentation ponds.
(c) Keller's Special Buffer Area (1,006 acres) is mitigation- for agricultural
values. Lawlor Creek enhancement includes 35 acres to mitigate for the
loss of approximately 3 acres of wetlands in the footprint.
(d) This includes the south parcel of the property (portion of Section 7,TIS
RZE) under option to Waste Management, Inc. The mile square section was
explicitly excluded from the project site description• in the EIR and was
not evaluated in the EIR's biotic resources or aesthetics analyses. The
applicant proposes to use it along with property on the site itself for 80
additional acres of oak woodland mitigation along with any additional
habitat improvements which may be desired. The applicant proposes to
mitigate on-site for 60 acres of the 140 acres of oak woodland lost. Its
value is also calculated at $4,464 per acre, the approximate average cost
per acre for total property under option.
(e) Marsh: Land may need to be acquired for roadway improvements. However,
the need for such acquisition cannot be determined prior to design of the
improvement. Keller: Roadway widening would occur on Keller property.
-6-
:e
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
"SOFT" COSTS
Keller Marsh
Cost Element Canyon Canyon
Permitting and Design 7,219,000 (a) 9,200,000 (b)
EIR Costs 244,000 (c) 396,000 (c)
Financing-One Time Costs 33,086,761 (d) 34,068,245 (d)
Financing-Other Costs undet. (e) undet. (e)
(a) Keller: This cost is based on a percentage of the estimated construction
cost. The initial permitting and design costs to open the landfill are
assumed to be approximately 50 percent of initial construction costs.
Thereafter (i.e. Year 1-10, Year 11-20, etc. ), these costs are assumed to
be part of the operations costs.
(b) Marsh: This cost is based on current and projected construction costs for
activities required by this phase of project.
(c) Both: Charges for EIR costs incurred by the County.
. (d) Both: . Based on cost of financing non-recurring costs necessary to open the
landfill, including land costs, construction costs to open and off-site
improvements that are know at this time. For Keller, non-recurring costs
are $27,782,300. For Marsh, non-recurring costs are $28,606,400. Assumed
9% interest note, paid over 20 years. These costs derived by Staff using
applicant data. ,
(e) Both: Financing of costs other than non-recurring costs are not estimated,
due to uncertainity on need for financing such costs.
-7-
:+_ •G
7
N
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
OPERATIONS COSTS (a)
Keller Marsh
Operating Period Canyon (b) Canyon (c)
Year 1-10 79,083,000 79,083,000
Year 11-20 79,083,000 79,083,000
Year 21-30 79,083,000 79,083,000
'Year 31-40 63,267,000 79,083,000
Year 41-50 N/A 79,083,000
Year 5i-60 N/A 39,583,000
TOTAL 300,517,000 434,998,000
(a) These costs are based on an assumed standard operating cost of $5.00 per
cubic yard of waste placed and a standard conversion factor of 0.6 tons per
cubic yard of waste. The approximate landfill lifetime is based on an
average total County wastestream of 949,000 tons per year (1,581,667 cubic
yards of waste per year) . The $5.00 per cubic yard of waste placed
operating cost represents the labor costs associated with the , landfill
exclusive of specialized construction activities such as liner, underdrain,
gas collection system, and final cover installation. It includes on-site
equipment, depreciation and equipment variables such as fuel and
maintenance. It also includes: administration; ongoing engineering,
legal, and accounting services; litter control; environmental monitoring;
other on-site routine activities; and miscellaneous costs such as
utilities, annual surveys, operating supplies, . etc. It does not include
taxes, profit, franchise fees, or governmental assessments.
(b) Keller: The Keller Canyon Landfill has an estimated airspace (volume
enclosed between base grading plan and the final buildout plan) of
approximately 75,254,000 cubic yards. The final cover, leachate collection
system, clay liner and underdrain occupy approximately 3,850,000 cubic
yards of this space. Subtracting this volume from the airspace yields a
volume of 71,404,000 cubic yards available for waste including daily and
intermediate cover. The daily and intermediate cover is estimated to
occupy approximately 10,710,000 cubic yards. Thus, approximately
60,694,000 cubic 'yards of volume (or 36,416,400 tons) is available for
waste. Assuming that an average of 949,000 tons of waste is placed in .the
landfill each year, the approximate life of the landfill is about 38 years.
(c). Marsh: Assumes a capacity of 87,000,000 million cubic yards (52,200,000
tons) , as noted in the project application. Assuming an average of 949,000
tons of waste is placed in the landfill each year, the approximate life of
the landfill is about 55 years.
-8-
.l
1.
K
. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
` OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Keller Marsh
Canyon Canyon
Road Entrance 102,900 (a) 145,000 (a)
Road Reconstruction 2,411,700 (b) 4,300,000 (b)
Left Turn Lanes -0- 753,000 (c)
Road Maintenance undet. (d) undet. (d)
Traffic Signal 150,000 (e) -0-
Intersection/Interchange undet. (f) 300,000 (f)
Noise Studies 20,000 20,000
Traffic Management Plan 30,000 30,000
Delta Expressway -0- undet. (g)
Area of Benefit Fees -0- undet.
.Water Serice Extension -0-
2,400,000 (h)
(a) Improvements at landfill entrance. Keller: 150 ft. storage lane, 1200 ft.
acceleration lane; 320 ft. approach taper. Marsh: 150 ft. storage lane;
150 ft. storage, lane; 150 ft. acceleation lane; separate right turn lane.
(b) Keller: Bailey Road reconstruction including 2-12 ft.' lanes, 2-8 ft.
shoulders, right hand traffic lane. Marsh: Marsh Creek Road
reconstruction including 2-12 ft. lanes, 2-4 ft. shoulders, replacement of
Marsh Creek Bridge, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
(c) Marsh: left turn lanes at 'Mobile Home" Park, Deer Valley Road and Walnut
Boulevard.
(d) Keller and Marsh: Maintenance costs of above would be proporionate to
traffic generated, adjusted for truck weight and number of axles
(e) Keller: At landfill and Bailey Road. Would be installed at a future date
if warranted by traffic conditions.
(f) : Improvements are Balfour Road intersection in Brentwood for Marsh and Hwy.
4/Bailey Road interchange in Pittsburg for Keller. Contributions for both
projects are proposed to be proportionate to the projects' traffic
generation increment, adjusted for truck use (a very conservative - high
range - factor of one large truck equals fifteen average vehicles is being
used for planning purposes) . The County Public Works Department estimates
the landfill's share of the Balfour Road intersection to be $300,000. Part
of the cost of intersection work being the additional traffic signals.
There is no reliable estimate for the Hwy 4/Bailey Road interchange. An
EIR is about to be prepared for it. Keller's engineer estimates the
interchange at $8,000,000 and the landfill's share at $2,400,000 (2a of
traffic times 15:1, truck adjustment equals 300) .
-9-
(g) Again, only rough figures for a Delta Expressway are available, and the
preparation of an EIR is only getting underway. Discussions with the
County Public Works Department indicate that the estimated costs reported
in the Community Development Department's memorandum to the Board of
Supervisors are as good as any that might be generated at this time. That
memorandum noted:
"According to information just obtained from the Public Works
Department, the cost of the road at an initial level of development (a
2-lane, at grade, roadway in a 4-lane right-of-way) would cost about
$70 million for the Delta Expressway proper and about another $10
million for a 2-lane connector to Vasco Road at Walnut boulevard'. At
an intermediate level of development (4-lane, without general grade
separation) , the cost would be about $95 million for the Delta
Expressway and about another $15 million for the connector to Walnut
Boulevard.
The Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval have not required the
landfill project to make a specific contribution to the Delta.
Expressway because the COA for landfills typically do not propose
special contributions to general purpose highway improvements, and in
this case the cost and timing of improvements are uncertain. The COA,
however, did provide that the landfill should participate in a benefit
area if one is created. The participation would be based on the
extent the project contributed to the highway's traffic, adjusted for
truck use. Currently, average daily traffic counts on Highway 4 east
of the freeway are 17,500 ADT (at Neroly Road) . With beginning truck
traffic at the landfill expected to be about 246 vehicles, the extent
of use expected on a Delta Expressway would be about 1% to 1.4%. A
conservative (high) multiplier for large trucks could be as high as
15:1. Assuming that existing, comparable-sized truck traffic is 5% of
the total traffic on this section of Highway 4, landfill-generated
truck .traff is would compromise approximately 8.3% .to 11.4% of the
equivalent average daily traffic (ADT) . Therefore, landfill traffic
would be responsible for about $6.64 million to $9.12 million
(depending on whether the ADT volume at Cypress Road or Neroly road is
used) of an $80 million project.
The- above estimate does not take into account the costs of
construction of the Expressway at an intermediate level (4 lanes at
grade) or ultimate level (4 lanes with grade separation) of
development. The actual contribution that would be required by the
landfill project to fund its share of, the Delta Expressway would be
determined by an in-depth study."
(h) The source of this estimate is the Contra Costa County Water District's
rough study for the extension of water service to the Clayton Regency
Mobile Home Park area which was reported on in CCWD's letter of October 30,
1989, to the applicant (DEIR, Volume 2, Appendix L) . The extension was
estimated to be $2,400,000; of this, about $316,000. (County Health Services
Department estimate) represents the incremental costs of extending the
water main from the Marsh Canyon Landfill to the mobile home park.
Source: Public Works Department Estimates except where noted.
-10-
'
`
- `
^
~
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR. CONSTRUCTION
AND
O0-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
COSTSFROM OPENING TO CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL
Keller Marsh
Cost Element Canyon Canyon
1' Earthwork
- Excavation to base grading plan see footnote (a)
- Engineered fill (berms) 4,827,000 240,000
2' Liner/Leachate Collection
- UndmrdraiD see footnote (b)
- Clay layer 1,058,000 c\ 2,807,000 /c\
- Flexible membrane 1I,658,000 (d) 14,947,000 (d)
- Leachate collection & removal see footnote (a)
3' Landfill Gas Collection see footnote (f)
and Processing
4' Water Supply and Storage 448,000 (Q) (g)
(0n-Site Facilities)
, 4,100,000
5' Ancillary Facilities 1,691,000 (h) (total for (h)
items 4,5,6\
5' Drainage and Runoff Controls4 I,200,000 ()) M
'
7. Habitat/Amricultural' Mitigatiun 1,269,000 ( ') 800,000 ( ^ )
Landscaping, Other On-site
8- ' Construction Management see footnote (k)
(a) Earthwork, Keller: 21,85 ',000 Marsh: 33,570,000' Keller generally
"works" more earth for excavation and, especially, berm construction'
� Marsh, however, must work harder materials, "ripping" bedrock in some
inst' ces' If the County were to require lift level berms on Marsh, the
differences in Earthwork costs would be less'
(b) Under-drain, Keller: 8,327,000 Marsh: 0. Keller proposes to install a
"blanket" under-drain of gravel beneath the landfill foundation to drain
off ground water and provide a back-up leachate conduit and collection
system' No comparable under-drain is proposed by Marsh because it has a
somewhat drier site. However, the Contra Costa Water District has
proposed, and staff concurs, that the County should reqVir'e Marsh to
provide a similar under-drain because leachate leakage would be a more
serious problem in an area served by wells'
-l�-
|
(c) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(d) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(e) Leachate collection and removal , Keller: 14,940,000 Marsh: 7,403,000. To
open the landfills, Keller reports a cost of $2,426,000 while Marsh expects
an expenditure of $335,000. The disparities continue in the year 1-10
period. Keller estimates expenditures to be $5,479,000 compared with
$847,000 for Marsh.
Although there is somewhat more rainfall at the Keller site, the amounts of
leachate that might be produced at both sites ought to be similar for
comparable years of operation.
One aspect of differences is that Keller provides a figure for leachate
collection and treatment while Marsh .lumps leachate treatment within a
generic ancillary facilities cost center.
(f) Gas Collection and Processing Costs, Keller: 11,175,000 Marsh:
3,480,000. To open the landfills, Keller reports a cost of $187,500 while
Marsh reports no expected costs. The difference might be attributable to
Marsh's expectations that it would not have to install a gas collection
system until 1,000,000 tons of waste was in place rather than concurrently
with the early depositions of waste, but the disparities continue: in the
year 1 - 10 operations, for example, Keller forecasts spending $1,916,000
while Marsh proposes to spend $336,000.
(g) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(h) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(i ) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(j) See applicant data submittals for assumptions.
(k) Construction Management, Marsh: $2,610,000 Keller: $8,165,000. Marsh
uses an estimate based upon $9,000/acre. Keller uses 10% of construction
costs. Yet, construction management should be approximately the same, once
adjusted for the life of the landfill .
-12-
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE COSTS
Keller Marsh
Cost Element Canyon Canyon
Final Cover - subtotal 5,095,000 (a) 7,746,000 (b)
- Foundation 1,834,000 detail not avail.
- Cap Layer 1,427,000 detail not avail.
- Topsoil/protective soil 1,834,000 detail not avail.
Annual Maintenance See footnote (c)
Biannual Survey for Settlement See footnote (d)
Annual Monitoring, Air See footnote (e)
and Ground and Surface Water
(a) Keller: The final cover consists of a two-foot foundation layer of
compacted soil, a one-foot clay cap layer, and a two-foot topsoil/
protective layer. The unit prices are: $2.25 per cubic yard for the
foundation layer; $3.50 per cubic yard for the clay cap layer; and $2.25
per cubic yard for the topsoil layer.
The costs estimated above are for the entire system. In reality the final
cover will be placed as filling progresses. The approximate periods and
percentage of final cover installed are: Year 1-10, no cover; Year 11-20,
130; Year 21-30, 260; Year 31-40, 620.
(b) Marsh: The final cover consists of a two-foot foundation layer of
compacted soil, a- one-foot clay cap layer, and a one-foot topsoil/
protective layer. The unit prices are: $1.32 per cubic yard for hauling
soil; $2.05 per cubic yard for spreading soil; $.65 per cubic yard for
soil compactor; and $.50 per cubic yard for fine grading. Final cover
assumes the foundation is intermediate cover. Calculated at 4839 cubic
yards per acre (290 acres) .
(c) Annual Maintenance. Keller: $160,000. Marsh: $1,015,000. Keller
figure based on personnel cost and a yearly cost for leachate management.
Marsh figure based upon per acre costs for fine grading, drainage
maintenance, vegetation maintenance and a yearly figure for security.
These costs should not differ so greatly.
(d) Biannual Survey. Keller: $20,000. Marsh: $750/acre. On a per acre
basis, Keller costs are $91. On a yearly basis, Marsh's costs are
$217,500. Marsh references Mean's Cost data (page 3) and assumes "1/2 of
maximum topographic cost." Keller references typical costs of performing
an aerial survey and producing a digitized map. These costs should not
differ so 'greatly.
(e) Annual Monitoring: Keller: $37,000. Marsh: $3,492,000. Keller figures
based upon frequency of monitoring by task. Marsh figures based upon
frequency of monitoring by cost per acre. These costs should not differ
so greatly_.
-13-
ESTIMATED
REGULATORY AND PROGRAM COSTS
BOTH
LANDFILLS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Property Taxes/Ton
Planning Surcharge/Ton 1.00
Inspection Surcharge .35
Development Coordinator
Recycling Coordinator
Franchise Fee
Geo-Technical Inspector
Transportation Benefit Area COSTS UNDETERMINED
Advisory Committee EXCEPT AS NOTED
Drainage Area Fee
OTHER GOVERNMENT CHARGES
Water Hook-Up (CCWD)
AB 939 1.00
State Closure Fund
RWQCB Monitoring
BAAQMD Monitoring
LANDFILL SITE PROGRAMS
Recycling
Household Hazardous Waste
Composting
Abandoned Vehicle Storage
-14-
E.
Community Contra Harvey of n
L Director of Coommummunity Development
Development Costa
Department County
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North W=ing 4: `-----------
Martinez,
.------ F,
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone: :;-
7� Z s�
Y'
5I:{'COU%'Tti
March 15, 1990
ERRATA
SOLID WASTE COST ANALYSIS
Page 4 footnote (a) & (b) Assumes restricted hours of 7:00 am to 7:30 pm for
Keller (see Keller note #8 for travel restrictions hours) and 7/00/40
to/$/$O/J�6 unrestricted hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm for Marsh.
Page 9 Water Service Extension, Marsh, �Aoj000 2,084,000
Page 10 footnote (h) Therefore, the cost for Marsh would be approximately
$2,084,000
H8/erratta
Waste Management of North America,Inc.
Northern California District-Contra Costa County Landfill Project
1801 Oakland Boulevard•Walnut Creek,California 94596
Suite 250.415/256-0155
M4rch 7 , 1990
Sara Hoffman, Solid Waste Manager
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street , North Wing
Martinez , California 94553-0095
Dear Ms . Hoffman:
Upon your request of March 5, I am submitting this response to the
questionnaire concerning the costs for the Marsh Canyon Landfill
Project .
As I discussed with you and Chuck Zahn, I am concerned about the
use of the information we are providing. The project is in the
preliminary design stage; many of the assumptions are at the
County' s direction and do not reflect the assumptions or methods
employed by Waste Management .
I am also concerned about the request to explain the rationale for
the technical approaches used in the preliminary design of the site
(Note 1 from the "Estimated Costs for construction and on-site
improvements" ) . We have submitted four volumes of information
through our land use permit application providing the detailed
rationale for our design. The Environmental Impact Report also
evaluated the approaches . In summary, our decisions were guided
by providing the most cost-efficient design and operation.
I hope this submittal is useful in comparing the economics of the
landfill projects . I also urge you to determine the economic value
of the extra years of capacity the Marsh Canyon site can provide
the County.
Sincerely,
J nRowuen, Project Manager
rsh Canyon Landfill Project
cc: Supervisor Nancy Fanden Phil Batchelor
Supervisor Tom Powers G. Scopesi
Supervisor Tom Torlakson R. Granzella
Supervisor Sunne McPeak S . Garaventa, Sr .
Supervisor Bob Schroder
Y
ESTIMATED LAND COSTS
COST ELEMENT ACRES COST
Project Site (b) (e) 1123 acres $5, 013 , 000
(This amount is calculated at $4 , 464 per acre, the average
cost of the 5 parcels under option. It includes acreage for
reservoir site for water extension and wetlands mitigation around
the sediment basins also on site. )
Mitigation Land (d) 557 acres $2 , 486 , 000
(This includes the south parcel of the property under option
. to Waste Management . This property is the natural buffer
between the Park District property and the site, and may be
used along with property on the site itself for 80 additional
acres of oak woodland mitigation along with any additional
habitat improvements which may be desired. This is also
calculated at $4 , 464 per acre , the approximate average cost
per acre for- total property under option. )
ESTIMATED "SOFT" COSTS
Project Design and Permitting $9 , 200 , 000
(This is based on current and projected contracted costs for
activities required by this phase of the project . )
Construction Management
Cost to open $ 153 , 000
Years 1-10 702, 000
Years 11-20 756 , 000
Years 21-30 414 , 000
Years 31-40 351 , 000
Years 41-50 234 , 000
Years 51-60 -0-
Assumption: $9 , 000 per acre for construction management. This
number is based on similar bids received on other
landfill projects in the State of California.
Phase Year of Construction Acreage
I Open 17
II 1 . 3 28
III 4 50
IV 12 43
V 20 41
VI 28 46
VII 37 39
VIII 41 26
Cost = Acreage x $9 , 000 per acre
(f) Financing and amortization periods for initial "soft cost"
capital expenditures will either be determined by the life
of the site or the life of the related expenditure. As
future "soft cost" capital expenditures are incurred, the
financing and amortization periods will be adjusted to
reflect the remaining life of the site at that point or the
life of the related expenditure.
ESTIMATED
OPERATIONS COSTS
Operating Period Keller (a) Marsh (b)
Years 1-10 28, 470, 000
Years 11-20 28 , 470, 000
Years 21-30 28 , 470 , 000
Years 31-40 28 , 470 , 000
Years 41-50 28 , 470 , 000
Years 51-60 11, 388 , 000
Assumptions : Annual tonnage = 949 , 000 tons/year
1 cubic yard = 0 .6 tons
Operating Cost = $5. 00 per cubic yard .
Total Refuse
Capacity = 87 , 000, 000
Annual 6 . 0 tons
10-year operating cost = Tonnage x 10 years cubic yards
x $5. 00
ESTIMATED
CLOSURE/POST CLOSURE COSTS
Cost Element Keller Marsh
Final Cover (a) 7 , 745 , 900 (b)
Foundation
Cap Layer
Topsoil/protective soil
Annual Maintenance (c) 1 , 015 , 000 (c)
Biannual Survey for Settlement (d) 750/acre (d)
Annual Monitoring, Air (e) 3 , 491 , 600 (e)
and Ground and Surface Water
(a) Keller: As shown in EIR, 2 feet foundation layer, 1 foot clay
(cap layer) , and 2 feet protective soil and topsoil . Estimate
construction costs as shown in Footnote (f) below.
(b) Marsh: As shown in EIR, 2 feet foundation layer, 1 foot clay
(cap layer) , and 1 foot topsoil . Estimate construction costs as
shown in Footnote (f) below.
(c) Provide basis for cost estimate .
(d) Provide estimate based on cost per acre of the landfill itself .
(e) Provide basis for cost estimate.
(f) All construction costs are to be estimated assuming third party
contractors . References to be used are:
Means Site Work Cost Data 1989 , 8th Edition, R. S . Means
Company, Kingston, MA, 1989 .
or - The Richardson Construction Cost Trend Reporter,
Richardson Engineering Services , Inc. , San Marcos , CA,
January, 1990 .
ASSUMPTIONS FOR CLOSURE/POST CLOSURE COSTS
Final Cover Costs
- Hauling of Soil : $1 . 32 per cubic yard (Means Cost Data p. 36)
- Spreading of Soil : $2. 05 per cubic yard (Means Cost Data p. 35)
Soil Compactor: $0 . 65 per cubic yard (Means Cost Data p.29)
- Fine Grading: $0. 50 per cubic yard (Means Cost Data p. 51)
Final Cover = 4839 cubic yards per acre assumes foundation is
intermediate cover
Final Cover = 290 acres x 4839 cubic yards x $4 . 02 per cubic yard
+ 290 acres x 14 , 520 square yards x $0 . 50 per square
yard
7 , 745, 900
C. Annual Maintenance = 290 acres , 4840 square yard/acre
Fine Grading = $0 . 50 square yard
Annual Drainage Maintenance = $500 per acre
Annual Security = $24 , 000
Annual Vegetation Maintenance = $500 per acre
Annual Maintenance = 290 x 4840 x $0 . 50 + 24 , 000 + $500 x 290 + 500
x 290
1 , 015, 000
D. Biannual Survey for Settlement
$750 per acre (Means Cost Data p. 3)
Assume 1/2 of maximum topographic cost
E. Annual Monitoring
Gas = $605 per acre per quarter
Leachate = $605 per acre per quarter
Ground Water/Surface Water = $1800 per acre per quarter
Annual Monitoring = 290 x 4 x $605
+ 290 x 4 x $605
+ 290 x 4 x $1800
+ 3, 491 , 600
I
ESTIMATED
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
1 . For Keller: Calculate the number of tractor-trailers necessary
under the following scenarios : three transfer stations : Richmond,
700 tpd; Acme , 1 , 500 tpd; and East County (Loveridge Road) , 400
tpd; operation seven days per week; landfill operating hours of
7 : 00 AM to 6 : 00 PM and 7 : 00 AM to 7 : 30 PM.
2 . For Marsh: Calculate the number of tractor-trailers necessary
under the same scenarios except that operating hours are to be 7 : 00
AM to 6 : 00 PM and 7 : 00 AM to 7 : 30 PM.
3 . For each site: Calculate the total tractor-trailer cost using
$55, 000 for each walking-floor trailer and $75 , 000 for each
tractor.
4 . State the amortization period used for the tractor-trailers .
5. Calculate transportation costs including amortization of the
tractor-trailer costs on a per ton/per mile basis for each site.
w. ASSUMPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTION COSTS
Question #1•
Tractor/Trailers required (including spares)
for Keller :
Operating Hours Operating Hours
Waste Source 7 am - 6 pm 7 am - 7 : 30 pm
Richmond 13 11
Acme 16 14
Antioch-Pittsburg
(Loveridge Road) 4 3
Total 33 28
Question #2 •
Tractor/Trailers required (including spares)
for Marsh Canyon:
Operating Hours Operating Hours*
Waste Source 7-am - 6 pm 7 am - 7 : 30 pm
Richmond 25 14
Acme 35 26
Antioch-Pittsburg
(Loveridge Road) 8 6
Total 68 46
* - Assumes 45-minute lunch break.
Question #3 •
Tractor/Trailer capital cost (including Federal
Excise Tax and State Sales Tax) for Keller:
Operating Hours Operating Hours
Waste Source 7 am - 6 pm 7 am - 7 : 30 am
Richmond $1 , 812 , 525 $1 , 533 , 675
Acme 2 , 230 , 800 1 , 951 , 950
Antioch-Pittsburg
(Loverage Road) 557 , 700 418 , 275
Total $4 , 601 , 025 $3 , 903 , 900
Tractor/Trailer capital cost (including Federal
Excise Tax and State Sales Tax) for Marsh Canyon:
Operating Hours Operating Hours
Waste Source 7 am - 6 pm 7 am - 7 : 30 pm
Richmond $3 , 485 , 625 $2 , 370 , 225
Acme 4 , 879 , 875 3 , 625, 050
Antioch-Richmond
(Loveridge Road) 1 , 115, 400 836 , 550
Total $9 , 480 , 900 $6, 831 , 825
Question #4 •
Amortization period used for tractor/trailer:
Operating Hours
7 am-6 pm 7 am-7 : 30 am
7 yrs . 6 yrs .
Question #5:
Transportation costs including amortization $/Ton and
$/Mile. (Excludes transfer station costs , differential
collection truck hauling costs and landfill tipper
costs . )
For Keller•
Operating Operating
Hours Hours
7 am - 6 pm 7 am - 7 . 30
$/Ton $/Mile* $/Ton $/Mile*
Waste Source
Richmond 6. 34 1. 91 ( .087) 6. 05 1 . 83 ( . 087)
Acme 3 . 53 2 . 25 ( . 102) 3 . 51 2 . 24 ( . 102)
Antioch-Pittsburg
(Loveridge Road) 2 . 36 4.77 ( . 22) 2. 24 4 . 52 ( . 22)
For Marsh Canyon:
Richmond 12 . 15 2 . 09 ( . 095) 10 . 01 1 .72 ( . 078)
Acme 8 . 19 2. 02 ( . 095) 7 . 39 1 . 83 ( . 083)
Antioch-Pittsburg
(Loveridge Road) 6 . 03 2 . 63 ( . 12) 5 .78 2 . 53 ( . 115)
* - Basis : average equivalent level miles round trip.
** - Cost per ton/mile ($)
r
ESTIMATED
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PREPARE SEPARATE TABLES IN THIS FORMAT
FOR THE FOLLOWING TIME PERIODS :
COSTS TO OPEN THE LANDFILL
COSTS YEARS 1-10
COSTS YEARS 11-20
COSTS YEARS 21-30
COSTS YEARS 31-40
COSTS YEARS 41-50
COSTS YEARS 51-60
NOTE 1 : THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES IN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND
THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES BETWEEN THE TWO
LANDFILLS . WHERE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES EXIST SUCH AS IN PROPOSED
LINERS AND LEACHATE SYSTEMS THE APPLICANTS SHOULD EXPLAIN WHY THEY
ARE PROPOSING THEIR SYSTEMS . THIS INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE
EIR AND THE LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION.
NOTE 2 : ALL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE TO BE ESTIMATED ASSUMING THIRD
PARTY CONTRACTORS . REFERENCES TO BE USED ARE THE FOLLOWING:
- Means Site Work Cost Data 1989 , 8th Edition, R. S . Means
Company, Kingston, MA, 1989
- The Richardson Construction Cost Trend Reporter, Richardson
Engineering Services , Inc . , San Marcos , CA, January 1990
Cost Element Keller Marsh
1 . Earthwork
a. Excavation to base
grading plan (a) 33 , 569 , 860 (a)
b. Engineered fill (berms) (b) 240 , 000 (b)
2. Liner/Leachate Collection
a. Underdrain (c) -0- (c)
b. Clay layer (d) 2 , 807 , 172 (d)
c. Flexible membrane (e) 14 , 947 , 341 (e)
d. Leachate collection
and removal (f) 7 , 402 , 526 (f)
3 . Landfill Gas Collection
and Processing (g) 3 , 480 , 000 (g)
4 . Water Supply and Storage
(On-Site Facilities) (h)
5. Ancillary Facilities
Note: j (h) + (i) + (j ) = 4 , 1001000
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - OPEN
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $8 , 469 , 555
b) Berms 60 , 000
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 180 , 244
c) Flexible Membrane 777 , 930
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 334 , 704
3 . Gas Collection -0-
4. Water Supply )
5. Ancillary )
Facilities ) $3 , 600 , 000
)
6. Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat -0-
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 1 THROUGH 10
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $11 , 810 , 313
b) Berms 60 , 000
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 780 , 508
c) Flexible Membrane 3, 745, 431
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 847 , 172
3 . Gas Collection 204, 000
4 . Water Supply )
5. Ancillary )
Facilities ) $ 500 , 000
6. Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat
Oak Woodland "1998
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 11 THROUGH 20
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $3 , 525, 000
b) Berms 60 , 000
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 803 , 120
c) Flexible Membrane 4, 736 , 128
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 2 , 492 , 080
3. Gas Collection 336 , 000
4 . Water Supply- )
5. Ancillary )
Facilities )
6 . Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 21 THROUGH 30
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $3 , 383 , 000
b) Berms 30, 000
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 435, 100
c) Flexible Membrane 2 , 667 , 027
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 1 , 409 , 020
3 . Gas Collection 600, 000
4. Water Supply" )
)
5. Ancillary )
Facilities )
6 . Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat
1
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 31 THROUGH 40
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $3 , 382 , 000
b) Berms 30 , 000
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 366 , 520
c) Flexible Membrane 2, 185, 878
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 1, 327 , 930
3 . Gas Collection $1 , 008 , 000
4. Water Supply )
}
5. Ancillary )
Facilities )
6 . Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 41 THROUGH 50
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $3 , 000, 000
b) Berms -0-
2. Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ 241, 680
c) Flexible Membrane 834 , 947
d) Leachate Collection/Removal 991 , 620
3. Gas Collection 1 , 020, 000
4. Water Supply- )
)
5. Ancillary )
Facilities )
6 . Drainage/ }
Runoff }
7 . Habitat
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
YEAR - 51 THROUGH 60
Cost Element Marsh Canyon
1 . Earthwork
a) Excavation $ -0-
b) Berms -0-
2 . Liner/Leachate Collection
a) Underdrain -0-
b) Clay Liner $ -0-
c) Flexible Membrane -0-
d) Leachate Collection/Removal -0-
3 . Gas Collection $ 312 , 000
4 . Water Supply )
}
5. Ancillary )
Facilities )
)
6 . Drainage/ )
Runoff )
7 . Habitat
ASSUMPTIONS FOR COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION
AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
CALCULATIONS SHOWN ONLY FOR YEARS 1-10
I . a) Excavation - Phase I & II , Acres : 69 , Cubic Yards = 3, 132 , 698
Clear & Grub - $2000/acre x 69 = $138 , 000 (Means p. 22 , light
to medium trees)
Stripping topsoil - $0 . 51/cubic yd x 111 , 698 cy = $56 , 966
(Means p. 23 , topsoil stripping)
Excavation - $2 . 52/cubic yd x 1 , 642 , 622 cy = $4 , 139 , 407
(Means p. 32 , scrape & evacuation [21 cy] )
Ripping - $3 . 00/cy x 1 , 378 , 394 cy = $4 , 135, 182 (Means p. 37 ,
shale average of medium to hard)
b) Berms - Each is 10, 000 cubic yards
Spreading and Compaction = $3 . 00/cy (Means pp. 35 and 29)
Each Berm = 10 , 000 x $3 . 00 = $30 , 000 each x 2 = $60, 000
Total Earthwork = $8 , 529 , 555
II. a) Excavation - Phases III & IV, Acres : 101 , Cubic Yards =
4 , 366 , 054
Clear & Grub - $2000 x 101 acres = $202 , 000
Stripping Topsoil - $0 . 51 x 157 , 340 cy = $80 , 243
Excavation - $2 . 52 x 2 , 287 , 650 = $5, 764 , 878
Ripping - $3 . 00 x 1 , 921 , 064 = $5, 763 , 192
Total Excavation = $11 , 810 , 313
b) Berms - 2 , 300 , 000 = $60 , 000
Total Earthwork = $11 , 870 , 313
Liner/Leachate Collection
Underdrain = -0-
Clay Liner = $6 . 00/cy or $9 , 680/acre
Flexible Membrane = $1 . 25/square foot or $54 , 450/acre
Leachate Collection/Removal = $0 . 60/square foot or $25, 870/acre
Gas
12, 000/acre based on other Waste Management facilities in
California
Ancillary facilities include:
Paved Entrance Road and Turnaround
Paved Haul Road
Office Building
Bridge
Scalehouse with scales
Maintenance Building
Fueling Islands
Water Supply and Storage Tanks
Monitor Wells
Utilities
Stormwater Retention and Sediment Basin Retrofit
Landscaping
Leachate Treatment
1 6 . Drainage and Runoff Controls (j ) (j)
7 . Habitat/Agricultural Mitigation, (k) r (k)
Landscaping, Other On-Site SCO
(a) For both landfills , describe depth and general location
(bottom, sideslopes) of excavation. Footprint sizes based on
design refinements during the EIR process : Keller, 218 acres;
Marsh, 290 acres .
(b) For Keller , toe berm and perimeter lift-level berms; for
Marsh, intermediate engineered berms to support each phase.
Applicants provide volumes of materials for berms .
(c) For Keller, a drainage layer under portions of the liner is
proposed. Marsh does not propose any underdrain. The Contra Costa
Water District has requested that an underdrain be required for
Marsh to ensure long-term groundwater protection.
(d) Keller proposes 2 feet of clay; Marsh proposed 1 . 5 feet of
clay.
(e) Keller proposed 80 mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE); Marsh
proposes 60 mil HDPE.
(f) Keller proposes 2 feet of gravel material with HDPE collection
pipes; Marsh proposes 1 foot of gravel on the base of the landfill
and geonet resting on HDPE on the sideslopes . Applicants provide
rationale for their proposed systems and for their projected
leachate volumes and methods of leachate disposal .
(g) Applicants provide a general description of their system and
its advantages and disadvantages .
(h) Keller ' s preferred water supply system is on-site wells and
water tanks; provide costs for each and for pumping. Marsh will
have to extend a water line; include this line in off-site costs .
Reservoir for Marsh must be costed here.
(i) Applicants provide rationale for projected leachate volumes
and methods for leachate disposal , and costs for leachate treatment
should it be necessary.
(j ) For both, include the costs of the following ancillary
facilities: scales , gatehouse, administration and maintenance
building, access roads , security fence, utilities (electricity and
sewage) , entrance facilities , and parking areas.
(k) Applicants provide costs for major drainage facilities
(sedimentation ponds , permanent drainage lines) .
(1) Keller---costs for habitat enhancement/wetlands replacement
along Lawlor Creek and fencing of rock outcrops , and costs of
agricultural enhancement of Special Buffer Area. Marsh---costs and
y
location for replacement of 140 acres of oak woodland and wetlands.
For both, projected landscaping costs for entrance, roads , and
facilities and revegetation of landfill area. For both, costs for
any other on-site mitigation measures specified in the Conditions
of Approval.
7-
Waste Management of North America,Inc.
Northern California District-Contra Costa County Landfill Project
1801 Oakland Boulevard•Walnut Creek,California 94596
'4*4000V Suite 250.415/256-0155
March 12, 1990
FAXED MESSAGE
Ii Phil Batchelor, County
Administrator
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez , California
Dear Mr. Batchelor :
We are concerned about the preliminary cost analysis that was
prepared by the County staff for the Board of Supervisors ' meeting
of Tuesday, March 13 , 1990 .
We are concerned thar, it may provide more confusion than
clarification for these very in-portant cost issues . Again, we
believe that detailed costs are ::,.ore appropriately addressed in our
negotiations for the franchise agreement and that this level of
discussion is unproductive at this point.
First, I would like to offer a brief , quantitative comparison of
the two sites . The Marsh, Canyon site is located further from
population centers than the Keller Canyon site and is accessible
only on a series of rural roads. However, the Keller site is
small, wetter and located next to one of the County' s -major
population centers . Though the• infarsh Canyon site will show higher
transportation costs , the costs for Keller are higher for
construction, mitigations , financing and earlier site replacement.
overall , the - analysis fails to quantify the advantages a n d
disadvantages of the two sites .
Listed below are our concerns about the quantitative analysis
prepared by the County staff:
1 . Transportation Costs
The costs for Marsh Canyon were based on a 7 : 00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m.
scenario. The County asked for an evaluation of two alternatives,
including a 7 : 00 a, m. to 8 : 30 p.m. scenario. The staff analysis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
1
I
Mr. Batchelor ti
March 12, 1990
Mage Two
i
i
i
did not include the costs of the latter analysis . Our analysis of
the 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. showed a significant decrease in costs
from that of the 7 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. scenario --- a total savings
of approximately $2 . 5 million per year.
2. Land Costs
j Our response to the staff ' s requests for costs showed that there
j ,
will be no additional land costs for off-site improvements . The
staff analysis is vague and misleading .
3. "Soft Costs"
j Footnote (d) and (e)
The cost questionnaire that was issued to us is not consistent
with the results that staff has submitted, i .e. , the
questionnaire asked for only construction management as a "soft
cost The analysis included both construction management and
construction costs to open.
Our footnotes . concerning financing were not followed. The County
asked us to come up with a financing period -- we showed a
financing period of the site life for non-recurfing costs such as
those incurred for opening the site. Staff did not follow it,
using, instead, a 20-year period for costs to open, rather than as
50- to 60-year period (site life) over which these costs will truly
be amortized. The one-time financing cost includes off-site costs
which the staff shows as "undetermined" .
4. Costs for Construction and On-Site Improvements
Earthwork: This section is very difficult to follow and in
conflict with information given previously by the Keller Canyon
Company (see Jill Shapiro ' s February 20 , 1990, letter to the Board
of Supervisors) .
Footnote (b) : We are uncertain what these numbers represent.
5 . Costs for Construction and On-Site „Improvements
Facilities : The total for Items 4 , 5, and 6 is $4 .1 million, as
we indicated in our response to the questionnaire .
i
i
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- - -- -- --- --
Mr. Batchelor
March 12., 1990
Wage Three
6 . Costs_for Construction and On-Site Irniarovements
Footnote (c) : We have submitted comments concerning the
underdrain to Mr. Charles Zahn dated March 12, 1990, which, explains
why. we feel that an underdrain is unnecessary and potentially
harmful at the Marsh Canyon site.
Footnote (g) : Installation of gas collection system is only
required once a :pillion tons of =caste is in place as per BA.AQMD
Regulation No. 8, Rule 34.
Footnote _ (1)
It appears that donstructior. costs for Keller have dropped by $40
million. from the last submittal (see letter by Jill Shapiro to the
Board of Supervisors, February 20 , 1990) .
7 aperati.on Costs
The data for Footnote (b) and (c) are misleading, since total costs
are based on the life ° of the landfills and since Marsh Canyon has
the added advantage to the County of its significantly increased
capacity.
Footnote B - The calculations shoran in this footnote ought to be
of concern to the County giver_ the sensitivity of adherence to
CEQA. The impacts addressed by the Keller EIR identify a site
which is 244 acres in size with a net air space of 50 million cubic
yards . The assumptions presented by the County staff in their
guidance document now show a footprint of 218 acres and this
analysis shows a net capacity of 61 million Icubic yards . This
discrepancy means that either excavation depths are lower or
heights are increased. New impacts should be evaluated through the
CEQA process.
.8 . Closure/post Closure Costs
Current monitoring costs for just leachate and groundwater
monitoring at one of Waste yis,^ugement ' s closed landfills exceeds
$100 , 000/year. The low numbers shown for Keller are of grave
concern given the close proximity of the City of Pittsburg.
----------------------------
---------------------------------
P.5 _
Mr. Batchelor
E March 12 , 1990
Page Four
In conclusion, it should be noted that we have had a very brief
time to review the staff report prepared on this item. However,
we are confident that the numbers we have continued to provide at
'i the staff ' s request have remained consistent, reasonable and
reliable. We do not believe that the staff report prepared
represents a careful analysis of these: very important cost issues
which we believe will dictate the County' s landfill policies for
the next 50 to 70 years.
if you have questions concerning our assessment of this exercise,
please call Neil Sherman -or me at (415) 256-0155.
{ Sincerely,
WAS/ A E ENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC .
I
3oF. Rowden, Project Manager
S*Sa sh Canyon Landfill Project
i
cc; Board of Supervisors
V. Westman, Esq.
R. Granzella
S. Garaventa, Sr.
G. scopesi
C. Zahn
R
® Engineers
® Planners !
Economists
® Scientists
March 9, 1990
SFO26898.PA. ZZ
Ms. Sarah Hoffman
Contra Costa County
Department of Community Development
County Administrative Bldg. North Wing
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Keller Canyon Landfill Costs for Construction,
Operations and Improvements
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Keller Canyon
Landfill cost estimate data. This is a summary of the
information we have provided to you and your staff over the
past week via telecopy.
If you have any additional questions or require additional
information please contact us.
Sincerely,
CH2M HILL
Jill Shapiro, PhD
Project Director
dlp:JS
CH2M HILL San Francisco Office 6425 Christie Avenue,Suite 500 415.652.2426
Emeryville,CA 94608
Ms. Sarah Hoffman
Page 2
March 9, 1990
SF026898.PA. ZZ
Attachments: Table 1 cost for Construction, operations and
Improvements
Table 2 Cost for Construction and Onsite
Improvement
Table 3 ,Cost for Post Closure Period
cc: Boyd Olney, Jr. /Keller Canyon Landfill Company
Kirsten Ritchie/BFI
Tom Bruen/Titchell & Maltzman
Scott Gordon/Titchell & Maltzman
h ,
cr O U N ro O O V O O V O
Q y '= VT O
0 <n N u y y (� ~ 0cc) 0 N o a O
a J Q of (�? V N � a9 69 69 49
c� t5 o rota pp pp pp ppb op"
N E O O h. O a O.�f{ c07 O (`� Ci
N ed co t0R N CO C2 10 M i0
QQ W 1"i N � 0 �-• `•- M
O M N h �
19 40 ON 69
f9 69 O
U! Vi
H
co
o a o 0
QavE;, n o00
w Cl)
O V O
M D 47 M N u
0 N
p0 o uai pp o o 0 o Loi
' � � O tD M O O to tfT u7 of
{ Q
co t0n m ��M co c) yfY� M eeLo� m
cli C! to MSM M
N H cu H m
N_
fA
O a pOp p0p
Cf)
co O O 0
}�— w `o ¢ 000
Z } N N N
W a
fc �n a c) o 0 q0p In
f- H O m In ci O o c 0 0 N
Q N N p N 11 N D N
0 _
N Ol CS m d3 N3Q9a
CC M
LL � K K K �
IL
G Q Q N 0 O $ O
w 'z O OhO
� Z ' " a
� Q
!^ N O O O
♦� �tnn LO
N
Q L/ h O N t7 O O N
Z m m m M o 0
ZG} o u; o Go Oln
r 0 O f, c\j 69
Z Q cs
J o a ¢ "
w a o
Z0 QD
.,.f+ Q t3 o us
0 b y 8 v, o n $ $ o
L 0 =' ptNit 'n � o o
W a h N y 1n O
J 4 a 69 o
W .. 69
YCc - N § "
d
E
Z ? D
0
U m anP
a: ro
N S" T >. T
0 m m m T V U U U
N m co U U U (moi
grl � ' c40
a6c6 c6 ci
» 4o
0 m
(1 c m
IDV
mZ5 lo� a cu a a to a N co �ri o .- NMy �n
Q h
N H mLLI
~
t
_j 8U a °'rn z m F 3y y m son a
h z 'a Q �ppi m ad o a F yy n lL jj c c:
O 15 c N � E E ¢ v .o o m m Z <? m ro
m v
a a m W H > aC . m >._ c m c 3 3
DQE Mc O o z c oc � uiC's�� � ro
mrn @ E U v � c y V oo m b ro ro
n c m � � iu �+ Uh c c cQc7ta �n
a e 0 a W U O ti `0 C41 ii .ti ro o < m 4 `" a ci v
.- fV cry � fV vi � N Nri .f
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS _
REFERENCE NOTES #'S 1, 2 and 3
ESTIMATED
LAND COSTS
Cost Element Keller
Project Site $ 6,001,400
Mitigation Land 3,722,200
Off-Site Improvements 0
TOTAL $ 9,723,600
Note #1
Project Site
The 2,628-acre site includes the 1,622-acre Primary Project Site
and the 1,006 Special Buffer Area. Cost is provided by the
applicant and is not verifiable at this time. Average land cost is
calculated at $ 3,700 per acre.
Note #2
Mitigation Land
Special Buffer Area (1,006 acres) is mitigation for agricultural
values. Lawlor Creek enhancement includes 35 acres of riparian
enhancement to mitigate for the loss of approximately 3 acres of
wetland. In addition approximately 5 acres of wetland will be
created to mitigate the loss of wetlands in the footprint. . (Costs
for construction of wetland mitigation are shown on the
Construction and On-Site Improvements Costs Table)
Note #3
Offsite Improvements
No land requirements for off-site improvements have been identified
for this project.
4 r
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCE NOTES #'S 41 and 5
ESTIMATED
"SOFT" COSTS .
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Cost Element Cost
Permitting and Design $7,219, 000
EIR Costs To be provided by County
Construction Management
Cost to Open $1,444,000
Year 1-10 $3 ,585,000
Year 11-20 $1,221, 000
Year 21-30 $ 937, 000
Year 31-40 $ 978,000
Financing Charges 9 percent over 38 years
Note #4
Permitting and Design
This cost is based on a percentage of the estimated construction
cost. The initial permitting and design costs to open the landfill
are assumed to be approximately 50 percent of initial construction
costs. Thereafter (i.e. Year 1-10, Year 11-20,etc. ) , these costs
are assumed to be part of the operations costs.
Note #5
Construction Management
This estimated cost is based on a percentage of the .estimated
construction cost. It is assumed to be approximately 10 percent
of the construction cost for each time period. This cost includes
managing the contractors and quality assurance monitoring and
testing.
Financing Charges
Assume a 9 percent interest rate and a 38 year landfill life (refer
to ESTIMATED OPERATIONS COSTS section for the estimated landfill
life based on 949, 000 ton waste stream) .
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCE NOTE #6
Construction and Onsite Improvements
The costs presented in this table are detailed in Table 2,
Costs For Construction and Onsite Improvements.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCE NOTE#7
ESTIMATED
OPERATIONS COSTS
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Operating Period Cost
Year 1-10 $79,083, 350
Year 11-20 $79,083,350
Year 21-30 $79,083,350
Year 31-40 $63,266,680
These costs are based on an assumed standard operating cost of
$5.00 per cubic yard of waste placed and a standard conversion
factor of 0.6 tons per cubic yard of waste. The approximate
landfill lifetime is based on an average total County waste stream
of 949,000 tons per year (1,581,667 cubic yards of waste per year) ,
to be consistent with the assumptions specified by the County for
estimating transportation costs.
The Keller Canyon Landfill has an estimated airspace (volume
enclosed between base grading plan and the final buildout .plan) of
approximately 75,254,000 cubic yards. The final cover, leachate
collection system, clay liner, and underdrain occupy approximately
3,850,000 cubic yards of this space. Subtracting this volume from
the airspace yields a volume of 71,404,000 cubic yards available
for waste including daily and intermediate cover. , The daily and
intermediate cover is estimated to occupy approximaely 15 percent
of this volume--approximately 10,710,000 cubic yards. Thus,
approximately 60,694,000 cubic yards of volume is available for
waste.
Assuming that an average of 949,000 tons of waste is placed in the
landfill each year, the approximate life of the landfill is about
38 years. This life has been used in estimating the above
operating costs.
KELLER. CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Note #7 continued
The $5.00 per cubic yard of waste placed operating cost represents
the labor costs associated with . the landfill exclusive of
specialized construction activities such as liner, underdrain, gas
collection system, and final cover installation. It includes on-
site equipment depreciation and equipment variables such as fuel
and maintenance. It also includes: administration; ongoing
engineering, legal, and accounting services; litter control;
environmental monitoring; other on-site routine activities; and
miscellaneous costs such as utilities, -annual surveys, operating
supplies, etc. It does n'ot include taxes, profit, franchise fees,
or governmental assessments,
s
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCE NOTE #8
ESTIMATED
TRANSPORTATION COST
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Tonnage: Based on no restrictions on the highways.
A) From Richmond transfer station
700 tons per day, 7 days a week
B) From ACME transfer station
1500 tons per day, 7 days a week
C) From Pittsburg transfer station
40.0 tons per day, 7 days a week
Travel Distance for Keller:
A) to/from Richmond transfer station: 57 miles
B) to/from ACME transfer station: 24 miles
C) to/from Pittsburg transfer station: 9 miles
Ton mile per year
Richmond: 700 x 57 x 365 = 14,563,500 ton miles/yr
ACME: 1500 x 24 x 365 = 13, 140,000 ton miles/yr
Pittsburgh: 400 x 9 x 365 = 1. 314,000 ton miles/yr
29,017,500 ton miles/yr
Restricted Transportation Cost:
$0. 13 per ton per mile which includes the following:
Labor: Salaries & fringe (dental, medical, retirement) .
Fixed: Tractors & trailers (depreciation, license fees) .
Variable: Fuel, parts replacements (tires, etc) ,
maintenance.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Note #8 continued
Source for the above based on operational data at the BFI
San Carlos transfer action.
Based on 22 tons per load.
Landfill operating hours of 7: 00 a.m. 7:30 p.m.
Travel Restrictions:
A) No trucks can leave Keller from 6:30 a.m.
8:30 p.m.
B) No trucks can leave ACME transfer station from
3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
C) No trucks can leave Richmond transfer station from
2:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.
To accommodate travel restrictions, labor and f ixed costs
are increased 30%.
Restricted Transportation Cost at $0.13 per ton per mile:
Labor & Var: $0.097/T-MI x 29,017,500 T-MI/YR= $2,815, 000
Fixed: $0.033/T-MI x 29, 017,500 T-MI/YR= $958,000
Per year $3,773,000
10 years $37,730, 000
Unrestricted Transportation Cost:
$0.11 per ton per mile which includes the following:
Labor: Salaries & fringe (dental, medical, retirement) .
Fixed: Tractors & trailers (depreciation, license fees) .
Variable: Fuel, parts replacements (tires, etc) ,
maintenance.
Source for the above based on operational data at the BFI
San Carlos transfer station.
Based on no travel restrictions on the highways for the
hauling vehicles.
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Note #8 continued
Based on 22 tons per load.
Landfill operating hours of 7:00 a.m. - 7 :30 p.m.
Unrestricted Transportation Cost at $0. 11 per ton per mile:
Labor & Var: $0.085/T-MI x 29,017,500 T-MI/YR= $2 ,466, 000
Fixed: $0.033/T-MI x 29,017,500 T-MI/YR= $725,000
Per year $3 , 191,000
10 years $31,910, 000
f,
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCE NOTES #9 through #15
. ESTIMATED
CLOSURE/ POST CLOSURE COSTS
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Cost Element Cost
Capital Costs
Final Cover
Foundation $1,834, 000
Cap Layer $1,427,000
Topsoil/Protective $1,834,000
Layer
Total $5,095,000
Periodic Costs
Annual Maintenance $160,000
Biannual Survey for Settlement $ 20,000
Annual Monitoring, Air, $ 37,000
Groundwater and. Surface
Water—
Note #9
Final Cover
The final cover consists of a two foot foundation layer of
compacted soil, a one foot clay cap layer, and a two foot
topsoil/protective layer. The unit prices are: $2.25 per cubic
yard for the foundation layer; $3.50 per cubic yard for the clay
cap layer; and $2.25 per cubic yard for the topsoil layer. The
estimated volumes required are: 815,259 cubic yards for the
foundation; 407, 630 cubic yards for the clay cap layer; and 815,259
- cubic yards for the topsoil layer.
-The costs estimated above are for the entire system. In reality
the final cover will be placed as filling progresses.
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Note #9 continued
The approximate periods and percentage of final cover installed
are:
Operating Period Amount of Final Cover
Placed
Year 1-10 zero
Year 11-20 13 percent
Year 21-30 26 percent
Year 31-40 62 percent
The unit costs for the various elements are based on data presented
in Means Site Work Cost Data 1989 and The Richardson Construction
Cost Trend Reporter, adjusted as discussed in Note #1 in Table 2,
Costs for Construction and Onsite Improvements.
Note #10
Annual Maintenance
The annual maintenance cost for post closure is based on the
following assumptions: 1. $5,000 per month for a person to be on
site 4 to 5 days per month and maintenance equipment when required;
2. $100,000 per year for leachate management.
Note #11
Biannual Survey for Settlement
The estimate for this is based on CH2M Hill costs for performing
an aerial survey and producing a digitized topographic map of the
site.
Note #12
Air Monitoring:
Closure to 10 years post, closure one walkover twice a year at
$3000 per walkover.
11 to 30 years post closure, one walkover per year at $3000 per
walkover.
r.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Note #13
Gas Monitoring:
Closure to 10 years post closure, four readings per year for three
flares at $400 per reading.
ilio 30 years post closure, four readings per year for one flare
at $400 per reading.
Note #14
Groundwater Monitoring:
Assume ten wells with each well monitored and tested as follows:
Closure to 10 years post closure, four times per year at $1000 per
test.
11 to 20 years post closure, two times per year at $1000 per test.
21 to 30 years post closure, once per year at $1000 per test.
Note #15
Surface Water Monitoring.-
Closure
onitoring:Closure to 10 years post closure, three samples four times per year
at $1000 per sample.
11 to 20 years post closure, three samples two times per year at
$1000 per sample.
21 to 30 years post closure, three samples once a year at $1000
per sample.
12 kq lc� Ci C� Vi ci Ci 00
m CY (D 0 scoo m a LO (D a)
0 4 19 Go cli P, 04 0) It V) r- C>
Cli 101 Cli V) 10rlt 69
49 cl
C)
v
O CC C�
6 P
0 z C) 0 cCO O
o Q
c2 c) co
cq QCl)
0 0 a a 0 C> a C> LLJ
Co 49 In C) a 0 0 >
C9 a Iq rIt OfS tq R Ui Lq to 0
t6 " r- cc
0 cl, .1 10 cs .1 co r, CL
0 n Cl) �: CD C) cli
Ci
fl
cl 0)
69
Z
C) a 0 0 z
8 8 0 8 co:! R 8 0
t6 c; P:
w z U*) g 0 (D
Ct O04
04 cc
F- H3
" Z
Z tat)) U) 'n N O) o
W V� to Ui to Iq cq C.)
w OD U) a) m v L9 M 04 t2
0 c
r., 0 .2
0 r%0 cv C,
a 44 cli
W ':49
w 69 Z9 69 C'T
>
0 p Q0
cc (D r,
V�ci (3i Cli R
Gl C4 c g
ui < (COY CD co rl v 0) iV tom
00 004000a a
C, C. to
LL 0 a 69 Cl Cli It Ct Lo Cli
0) M m
0 -- R Ul) 0-0 C) 10 0)
Z z 0 -171 a M N - " 6 v t2 .1
< 0 te 2 -7 q 69 49 44
C\j 1 49 40 44
W z z 0
cr � , 8
0 < 't n . Cli
ED Ul ;; M ovmm !2Nw
Z C', 0
Z t2 29NOM
R
IC, 08 c8y RC> 8 0
cr 0 A 0 F q Cli
'D
Cl) CP.: P q Cl) 0
t2
W D Ln CO C.)
0 co 0 (7)
N U') m !2to
69 49 40 60
< T N V r t71 OfGO N OD
=) Iq
0 C%jt/fVVV.
CY
P I'D
m
CD
Z) MG CT
C.) (j U = 0 QIll
(D Ln 0 0 400 8
0 C� U� U) CO Lf)
C) 49 49 41
CY w r- wt2 t2
Z Eoma
4b ft W. ft
Z
cc
ZL CD
of m E
(D CM E
U-
cc 0 m
6 �c 0
LLJ a cc
W co
-i CL 0 w
B . Cc w
wm T CML ro -Z r (L
CD is 2 '5
U- 0 c
LL ID 0 CL E m D Q. 0
2 'mo 0 X -z
o gl CDro
'Z 16 'D cm
cc m 10 c
> CL Z5 -J 'o r CD — o (D CD 4n
9) (D a 0 • '0
E
0 Z5 C:
C)
U. 0 B U. -i (D 10
S
B ci . 3. 0 a
as
< a I
w
4 ui tU h. to
L
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
z COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #1
Excavation to Base Grading Plane
For Item la, excavation by the Contractor is the gross excavation
quantity to the base excavation plane minus the quantity required
for -cover. Excavation and placement of daily cover, intermediate
cover and the perimeter lift-level berms are included in
Operational Costs. Final cover is included in Closure Cost
Estimates. The unit cost of excavation includes hauling and
placement. The unit cost for Compacted Fill and Clay Liner is
included in the unit price for those items.
Because of the large volume of earthwork, a 7.5% reduction (average
of estimated range of 5% to 10%) from Mean's and Richardsons' Cost
Estimating Guides for the mass earthwork unit prices are assumed.
An increase of 17% above the nationwide averages listed in these
cost estimating guides is also assumed to account for an area
allowance.
Excavation conditions at borrow sources on-site are assumed to be
the average between "medium digging" and "hard digging" .
Excavation conditions from on-site stockpiles are assumed to be the
average between "medium digging" and "easy digging". Average haul
distances on site from borrow source/excavation site to fill
site/stockpile range from 1,000 to 4,000 feet.
Note #2
Compacted Fill
The unit cost for Item lb, is $0.50/cubic yard because all fill is
placed from cut and cost for hauling and placement is included in
Excavation Cost. This unit price is for compaction only.
Note #3
Underdrain Gravel
For Item 2a, the unit price is based upon Means' and Richardson's
cost estimating guides for imported granular materials with
adjustments as described for Item la.
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #3 continued
Underdrain gravel underlies more than 2/3 of the landfill footprint
area, which includes the canyon floor and sideslopes. This feature
is incorporated in the design to provide additional protection to
the environment. It is also anticipated that the regulatory
agencies will require this feature. The underdrain keeps
groundwater from saturating the composite liner system over the
operational and post-closure life of the landfill. This provides
for increased long-term static and seismic stability of the
landfill. The underdrain also provides a means of detecting
leakage and will intercept and collect leachate in the event there
is a problem with the liner system; this is an additional level of
environmental protection.
Note #4
Underdrain Piping
For Item 2b, the unit price of underdrain piping includes the cost
of materials, placement, assembly, and bedding/backfill.
Underdrain piping size is predominantly 6-inch diameter.
The unit price is based on Means' and Richardson's cost estimating
guides with adjustments as described for Item la.
The underdrain piping underlies the canyon floor area of the
landfill. This provides additional redundancy in the design and
efficiency in collecting groundwater.
Note #5
Clay Liner
For Item 2c, materials for Clay Liner are known from site
geologic/soil studies and testing to be available from onsite. The
unit price of $1.25/cubic yard is additional cost of fine grading
and compaction above that for Excavation Costs as described for
Item la.
Note #6
Flexible Membrane Liner
For Item 2d, the unit price for Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) is
based upon a generally accepted current rule by liner contractors
and vendors of one cent per square foot per mil thickness of FML.
J
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #6 continued
The FML is 80 mil thickness and underlies the entire landfill
footprint area. The composite liner design (80 mil FML and 2 foot
thickness of clay) exceeds the regulatory requirements for a Class
II landfill in California. The FML is included in the design to
provide additional environmental protection.
Note #7
Leachate Collection Gravel
For Item 2e, the unit price is based upon Means' and Richardson's
cost estimating guides for imported granular materials, as
described for Item la.
Leachate collection gravel covers the liner throughout the entire
landfill footprint area.
Note #8
Leachate Collection Piping
For Item 2f, the unit price of leachate collection piping includes
the cost of materials, placement, assembly, and bedding/backfill.
Leachate collection , piping size includes 6, 10 and 12-inch
diameter. The unit price is based upon Means' and Richardson's
cost estimating guides with adjustments as described for Item la.
Leachate collection piping underlies the entire landfill footprint
area. The leachate collection system is designed as essentially
a gravel drain with HDPE collector pipes. The network of pipes is
designed to keep the level of leachate in the gravel less than one
foot above the composite liner system. This provides additional
environmental protection because it reduces the hydraulic head (due
to leachate) on the liner and thereby reduces the quantity of
leakage should a problem develop with the liner. The system is
also sized for a conservative leachate generation estimate and is
redundant as the gravel drain and piping system each have
sufficient capacity to transmit twice the estimated leachate
quantity to the collection point.
An estimate has not been prepared for leachate treatment facilities
because our predesign studies indicate that such a system will not
be necessary.
KELLER- CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #9
Geotextile
For Item 2g, the unit price is based upon bid quantities from
previous landfill projects, with adjustments made for local area
costs as described for Item la.
In general, two layers of geotextile cover the entire landfill
footprint area. One layer is between the clay liner and the
underdrain gravel, the other . layer is between the leachate
collection gravel and the overlying protective soil layer or
refuse.
Note #10
Gas Collection and Flare System
For Item 3, two alternative methods of landfill gas collection are
being evaluated: vertical wells and horizontal trenches. The costs
listed in the above table are for a vertical well system.
The initial costs of $187,500 is for a "starting system" of
enclosed. flares and blowers. The final system is estimated at
$750,000 for six enclosed flares and six blowers. The final system
cost is spread over the initial costandthe subsequent 11 to 20,
-21 to, 30 and' 31 to 40- year periods. The f lare/blower system cost
of $187,500 is repeated for each of these four periods.
For the 11 to 20, 21 to 30 and 31 to 40 year periods, the remaining
costs are for the vertical well collection system. The unit prices
,for this system were based upon bid sheets from a recently
-completed landfill in southern California.
The cost of-a horizontal trench collection system is approximately
the same as' the of cost of the vertical system. The enclosed flare
and blower, system cost are also approximately. the same for the
vertical and horizontal systems.
N
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #11
Water Supply and Storage
For Item 4, the water supply and storage is based upon requirements
of the fire department, domestic water supply, and dust control.
The unit prices for cost estimating purposes are based upon Means'
and Richardson's cost estimating guides with adjustments as
described for Item la.
The water supply/recharge will be from a series of approximately
3 to 5 onsite wells. A total cost of $288,000 is estimated for
the wells and the piping distribution system.
.Water storage requirements are a total of 240,000 gallons.
The cost for storage tanks are based upon four 60,000 gallon,
reinforced concrete storage tanks each at $80, 000 for a total of
$320, 000.
The combined total of supply and storage is estimated at $608,000.
Note #12
Structures
For Item 5a, the structures include:
o Maintenance Building, Administration Building,
Employee Facility, and Truck Wash
Facility ($116,000, $25,000,
$25,000, and $100,000 respectively) .
o Scale and Scale House ($185,000)
o Fuel tanks, septic tanks, etc. ($25, 000)
Pre-engineered metal buildings with slab-on-grade concrete floors
are assumed for the buildings, and unit prices per square foot are
taken from Richardsons, with adjustments for local area costs as
described for Item la.
v' f
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
r
Note #13
Roadway
For Item 5b, the roadway costs include 4,700 linear feet of paved
access roadway, 30 feet in width, from Bailey Road; approximately
303, 000 square feet of paved parking in the Operations and
Maintenance area and Water Storage Facilities; and 41,000 square
feet of gravel surfacing in the transfer trailer parking area.
The 4,700 linear feet of access roadway includes approximately
10,000' cubic yards of .:cut and 260,000 cubic yards of fill. For
the imbalance of fill of 250,000 cubic yards a unit price of
$0.50/cubic yard is used as described for Item la. Required fill
material for the roadway is available from excavations onsite.
For the balance of cut and fill of 10,000 cubic yards a unit price
of $2.75/cubic yard is used ($2.25 to excavate, haul and place,
and $0.50 to compact) .
A pavement section capable of supporting anticipated heavy
traffic loading is assumed for the pavement section of the access
roadway. The pavement section for parking areas is assumed to be
for automobile and light truck traffic.
Note #14
Utilities
For Item 5c, utility costs are for hookups for electrical and
phone systems from Bailey Road. The costs are for utility duct
bank construction from Bailey Road to the Operations and
Maintenance and Water Storage areas, a distance of approximately
3,000 feet.
Note #15
Miscellaneous
For Item 5d, miscellaneous costs are for security fences for the
landfill perimeter, the Operations and Maintenance Area, and Water
Storage Areas.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #16
Drainage and Runoff Controls
For Item 6, the drainage and runoff controls include the
sedimentation/retention basin and associated facilities; landfill
perimeter drainage culverts, baffles, downchutes, etc. , and final
cover surface drainage facilities. The cost for these facilities
is based on the amount of formed concrete, concrete and corrugated
metal piping in place, and the amount of earthwork required for
the sedimentation/retention basin. The unit prices for these
elements are based on Means' with adjustments as described for
Item 1a.
The sedimentation/retention basin costs and the initial landfill
perimeter surface drainage facilities are estimated to be on the
order of $500,000. This is the estimated initial construction
cost.
As the landfill develops and final cover is placed, additional
surface drainage facilities are added, which is reflective of the
costs shown for the 11 to _20, 21 to 30, and 31 to 4.0 year periods.
The cost of the above facilities are considered as part of the
construction and onsite improvement costs. The cost of interim
surface drainage facilities are included as part of the operations
cost.
Design of the drainage and runoff controls onsite will enhance the
performance of the existing storm drainage facilities downstream
of Keller Canyon at Jacqueline Drive. The capacity of the
existing culvert is based on a 10-year storm event. During major
storms water presently backs up at the Jacqueline Drive storm
drainage inlet. The landfill's sedimentation/retention basin will
significantly reduce peak- flows to the existing system during
storm events. The basin is designed to detain the 1000-year 24-
hour storm. Peak flows for all storms will be attenuated by the
basin. (For example, the peak flows from the basin for the 25-
year 24-hour storm will be compatible with the capacity of the
culvert. ) In addition the amount of sediments that would under
existing conditions be introduced into the existing storm drainage
system under existing conditions will be reduced.
KELLER -CANYON LANDFILL
r
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
A
Note #17
Landscaping
For Item 7, landscaping costs were provided by Steve Wheeler of .
Wallace, Roberts and Todd, Landscape Architects. Opinion of cost
was developed in accordance with the guidelines of the American
Society of Cost Estimating Engineers.
The total landscaping cost shown includes landscaping of the
landfill entrance/access road, the maintenance/facilities areas
including the sedimentation pond, and the enhancement of the
Lawlor Creek Corridor north of the landfill entrance.
The following cost assumptions were used:
Entry/Maintenance Area Ouantity Unit Cost Total
and Facilities
Street Trees 100 $ 325 $ 32,500
Fruitless Orchard Trees 300 325 97, 500
Planting at Maintenance
Facilities 14,000 2.00 28,000
Replanting graded areas 408,000 .20 81, 600
Irrigation 40, 000
Entry Monuments 30, 000
Entry Fencing 20,000
Sedimentation 'Pond 60,000 1. 00 60,000
Subtotal $389, 000
Lawlor Creek North of
Entrance Ouantity Unit Cost Total
Planting 170,000 $1.00 $170,000
Path 40,000 2.25 90, 000
Benches,Parcourse 20,000
Subtotal $280,000
Landscaping Total $669, 000
It is estimated that the total cost of $669,000 will be distributed
evenly between the initial costs and the 1 to 10 year costs, or
$334,500 for each of these periods.
RELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COST ,FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Note #18
Lawlor Creek Riparian Enhancement
For Item 8, opinion of cost for the riparian enhancement was
developed in accordance with guidelines of the American Society of
Cost Estimating Engineers.
The following cost assumptions were assumed:
Lawlor Creek 'Enhancement (Riparian)
South of Landfill Entrance -35 Acres
Studies $ 20,000
Design 30,000
Construction 150,000
Monitoring (5 years) 100,000
Total $300, 000
It is estimated ,that the total cost of $300,000 will be distributed
evenly between the inial costs and the 1 to 10 year costs, or
$150,000 for each of these periods.
Note #19
Wetlands Creation
For Item 9, opinion of cost for wetlands creation was developed in
accordance with guidelines of the American - Society of Cost
Estimating .Engineers.
Cost of wetlands mitigation is extremely site specific. Because
exact requirements of wetlands mitigation have not yet been
determined by the Corps of .Engineers, an estimate was made using
costs from existing mitigation projects in the Bay Area as
published in Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California,
Michael Josselyn, Editor, 1982.
i
KELLER- CANYON LANDFILL
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
R
Note #19 continued
The following cost assumptions were used:
Wetlands Creation 5 Acres
Studies $ 50,000
Design 50,000
Construction 100,000
Monitoring '(5 years) 100, 000
Total $300, 000
It is estimated that the total cost of $300,000 will be distributed
evenly between the inial costs and the 1 to 10 year costs, or
$150,000 for each of these periods.
m Q7 m 0 0 000
-
¢ o 0 0 0 0
vyat- y a1 o0 0080 0
CL 0 0 LL N (.3 M M N co h N N
CL
J U N U (0 O � ti"49 19 Y! 69
�.
a a CL
o oo MCli o'M g
O —a N n cCOv vNi Co 03 r�
oCo Ci
Cap44
69 (C) c� 19 4; 449 % 0
6s ui
� C' � Clii o00
¢ zd Z
W d cru u7 N uos
O O 4> O O D 0 0 M
N N N V
0 M M N M N M to M .
p Ca C7 0 4n C Cl
O
49 (D a) m 01 49 M f9 C
69 V) Y! 69 N
pp
0 0 M o
� 0 tIJ
♦��n1 C`3
VJ Q O Z CO N pNp
W d co N N
Z
W
oo rn o p o 0 0 8 a
W N 0 CO SO OOO N
N N M ^ 000 < M V N
O p N N 0 to N N
0 N Ch Co Of 49 (9 N 49 M
^� 69 d3 H K
W �
N
18
¢aZ `° ago
u� ¢ oa
LL U) o o $ 0
Z Z O o rn m Fm v
tat�tD� 0 to N
V p 19 Ch CXi co 0) Co
J Q 69 49 w'"
..J O W cr
co Z O }
O o u2
�-- U Zo
O {i Ogg $
W F- OuOt 0co
n cQ'v � v o
C)L 44
Y Cj 0
dZ
(J) ~
Z Z d
O
U m '2aa
m > r a
0
."' U V V 3
LL. m m m tJ f31 U C 1
U) df p 0 pN
N� V) cm
h N 69
U
/y C 0
p
tiJ m p �N # h` c0 of t2
Z Z w ar a ae ac ac ac sc sc
lA
O o M H
� m 8 o
CL , W w
Z N N c a U CL ~ T @ O
W H m U m Z c N m CC
O 0 a E O 3 a m ii a
W 0 m V m m O y Q }- c w
N z E C] m otf o a F `" m ¢ t; m " c `m
0 S c io — a0 o m � m 3
Z c y O a Z 0 E o � o m
O 0 c a N m O o N c 2 a m m m M t'ri o v m
CM �, �y a
� 0E Co � roc O oU ¢ oc `o" �` � c'o
m n o0 m D V o $m m
ox O c u C3 F- o C = ¢ � t7tr's
2wci ZO i6 4 .`diiL LL ria t' < m < `° ri do
.- CV C61 C7 r N N Cry V
•
r Y
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS' FOR POST CLOSURE PERIOD
s
Note #1
Annual Maintenance
The annual maintenance cost for post closure is based on the
following assumptions: 1. $5,000 per month for a person to be on
site 4 to 5 days per month and maintenance equipment when required;
2. $100,000 per year for leachate management.
Note #2
Biannual Survey for Settlement
The estimate for this is based on CH2M Hill costs for performing
an aerial survey and producing a digitized topographic map of the
site.
Note #3
Air Monitoring:
Closure to 10 years post closure-- one walkover twice a year at
$3000 per walkover.
-11 to 30 years post closure-- one walkover per year at $3000 per
walkover.
Note #4
Gas Monitoring:
Closure to 10 years post closure-- four readings per year for three
flares at $400 per reading.
it to 30 years post closure four-- readings per year for one flare
at $400 per reading.
y
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
COSTS FOR POST CLOSURE PERIOD
s
6
Note #5
Groundwater Monitoring:
Assume ten wells with each well monitored and tested as follows:
Closure to 10 years post closure-- four times per, year at $1000 per
test.
11 to 20 years post closure-- two times per year at $1000 per test.
21 to 30 years post closure-- once per year at $1000 per test.
Note #6
Surface Water Monitoring:
Closure to 10 years post closure-- three samples four times per
year at $1000 per sample.
11 to 20 years post closure-- three samples two times per year at
$1,000 per sample.
21 to 30 years post closure-- three samples once a year at 1, 000
per sample.