HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251985 - T.12 T .12
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA -COUNTY, -CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 25 , 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal Sites - Landfill Planning
This being the time for consideration of the following
items:
1 . Letter from Mayor, City of Pittsburg, requesting a
thirty day time extension to file written comments on
the proposed Bailey Road Solid Waste Disposal Site; and
Letter co-signed by the Mayor, City of Pittsburg, and
the Mayor, City of Antioch, requesting the Board to
reconsider the issue of a public dump-site as well as
multiple dump sites in various areas of the County.
2. Report from Supervisor Torlakson dated June 18, 1985
recommending setting an evening meeting of the Board in
early August to gather public input on solid waste
siting issues .
3. Report, from Director of Community Development in
response to Board referral of June 18, 1985 regarding
proposed process to be followed by consultants in pre-
paring Environmental Impact Reports on the three' private
solid waste disposal site applications .
Supervisor Torlakson commented that today's meeting is
to determine the process for selecting a landfill site to serve
Contra Costa County.
Supervisor Torlakson requested that the Board hold an
evening 'workshop to discuss procedures and process for selecting a.
landfill site.
Chairwoman Fanden read , for the benefit of the
audience , an informational letter she had sent to the press
outlining the process the Board must go through in selecting a land-
fill site .
Nancy J arent, Mayor of the City of Pittsburg, appeared
and requested the Board to reconsider the issue of studying the other
sites identified in the County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District study, advised that Contra Costa County Sanitation District
No'. 7A had instructed its engineer to look at what waste streams are
available , that 7A is looking for a backup/backup site, and that 7A
will give to 'Contra Costa County $25 ,000 to help fund the second
phase of the study, which they understand will cost $120,000, and
. will dedicate some of its engineering staff time to the planning and
site study functions . She advised that the Cities of Pittsburg and
Antioch will each pledge $15 ,000 with the understanding that the
County find the rest of the funds .for the study.
Mayor Parott thereupon submitted resolutions from the
Cities of Clayton and Concord opposing the sites for which applica-
tions have been received to date. She advised that the City of
Pittsburg; is looking for the best way to handle waste in the County
and urged the, Board to look at all the options and to begin long-
range planning now.
The Director of Community Development submitted a report
and recommended actions for the Board to take if it decided to
proceed with a comparative evaluation of the landfill sites iden-
tified in the CCCSD/CCC Phase I study.
Supervisor McPeak suggested additions to the above
recommendations .
Joel Kellor, Mayor of the City of Antioch, appeared and
requested that all sites be evaluated on a stated set of criteria so
that ultimately when a site is selected, it will be the best
possible site. He indicated support for the actions recommended by
the Director of Community Development .
Supervisor Schroder suggested the Board take some of the
actions necessary at this time before hearing from the many members
of the public who wish to speak on this matter.
As recommended by Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED; that a 10-day extension is granted to the City of
Pittsburg; for filing written comments on the proposed Bailey Road
Solid Waste Disposal Site .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Supervisor Torlakson's
request :for an evening meeting is granted, and August 27, 1985 at
7: 00 p.m. is fixed for a public workshop on the selection of waste
disposal sites .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the recommendations of the
Director of Community Development on the process of comparative
evaluating of Phase 1 landfill sites are approved, with the additions
suggested by 'Supervisor McPeak. (See order attached . )
Chairwoman Fanden thereupon read the four points of her
criteria for the selection of a site which she stated must be met
before she could agree to the selection of a site, as follows:
" 1 . What are the financial needs to conduct further
studies on the landfill sites , i .e. , dollar amounts and
for what? That you have to answer for me in those
thirty days.
"a. Resources available to acquire the land and to
develop the sites after the studies are complete, and
the dollar amount . You get a site, you identify it,
you' ve got to know how much its going to cost and who is
going to pay for it .
"3. The time within which this process can occur in
relation to the need for a landfill site. We are
running out of time , can you do this and still meet the
two years .
114. And lastly, the likelihood of the ability of a
waste stream, which is the basis for paying for the
acquisition of the property and development of the site,
to be directed toward a public landfill site."
Supervisor Torlakson requested formation of a committee
consisting of two Board members to deal with all solid waste and
landfill site issues instead of the Internal Operations Committee,
suggesting that members of this committee must be willing to meet in
the evenings at various places throughout the County which are
accessible to, the public as may be necessary to deal with issues
which are on referral to that committee .
Chairman Fanden announced that she would like to appoint
Supervisors Powers and McPeak to that committee, but that she felt
it appropriate to delay naming the committee members until July 302
1985 when the Director of Community Development makes his report and
at which time Supervisor Powers will be present .
The Chair then opened the discussion for public comment,
and the following persons appeared:
Bill Sullivan, 3301 Loreta Dr. , San Ramon
John Waters , 11500 Skyline Blvd, Oakland, representing
the East Bay Regional Park District
Jim Hanson, P . 0 . Box 23, Crockett
Tim Donahue, 2412 Cambridge Dr . , Antioch
Ana Gavozdea, 2214 Ackerman Dr. , Pittsburg
Janet Callaghan, 914 Sandy Cove Dr, Rodeo
Ronald Currie , 4270 Diehl Way, Pittsburg
Joseph L. Judson, 4300 Railroad Ave . , Pittsburg,
representing the A. D Seeno Construction Co .
Warren L . Smith, 1100 Bailey Road , Pittsburg
Val Alexeeff, representing the City of Clayton
Gregg Philbrick, 2235 Ridgecrest Way, Pittsburg
Duane Beddses, 20 Fairway Ct . , Pittsburg
Gary Schultz, 1091 Honey Court , Pittsburg
Steven Jimenez, 1500 Mission Dr. , Antioch
Chairwoman Fanden read the comments of the following
persons who submitted speakers cards indicating they wished to leave
comments for the Board's consideration, but did not wish to speak:
Eileen Hanson, P . 0 . Box 23, Crockett
Loma Hallisy, 3901 Highway 4, Crockett
Margaret VanDenBoard, 1120 Christie Road, Martinez
Kathy Fitz , 2461 Grimsby Dr. , Antioch
Lorrie Lynn Fava, 843 Wedgewood Drive, Pittsburg
The Chairwoman thanked the speakers for their par-
ticipation and invited the public to attend the August 27 , 1985,
7: 00 p.m. workshop.
f heroy"T*that thh is a hire andawwo
on action taken and entered on the n4rwtes of the
Board of Supervisors on the dot*shown.
ATTESTED: .,_._. J,x.�- , Z1.PS
......
PHIL SATM a,C%*of(he®card
of Suparvism arm$County Arndinistrater
By ..._. ....._.., Deputy
cc: Community Development
Public Works
County Administrator
County Counsel
Health Services
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Community DevelopmentC ltra
C1)sta
DATE: June25, 1985 Co �/
SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CCCSD/CCC PHASE I LANDFILL SITES �� �)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND APD .JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
If it is the Board's decision to proceed with a comparative evaluation (at a reconnaissance level of
detail) of the landfill sites identified in the CCCSD/CCC Phase I study, the Board should:
I. Determine which groups of sites are to be included in the evaluation (only five of the sites
originated by the Phase I study have been completely analyzed).
2. If the Board wishes to include additional sites :in the comparative evaluation, direct the
Community Development Department to prepare-a .proposal, including its cost, for .bringing the
information on the additional sites up to the level--Df that.available for.the five sites (considerably
more information is already available for the three<private=sector sites).
3. Direct the Community Development Department:to draft a:set of evaluation criteria for landfills -
(see pages 9 through 11 of the accompanying memorandum) for presentation to the Board.
4. Direct the Community Development Department to prepare a proposal for a study which would
apply the afore-mentioned site-inventory and evaluation criteria to compare the sites (see page 13
of the accompanying memorandum).
Staff can return to the Board with a proposed work program and estimated costs for this program in
approximately 30 days.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Board, at its June 18 meeting, referred the question of how best to obtain a comparative
evaluation of the Phase I sites to the Community Development Department.
2. The present level 'of basic information for many of the sites that the Board may wish to be
included in an evaluation is inadequate.
3. Obtaining the requisite information and performing the evaluation study through modifications of
the private-sector site Environmental Impact Report contracts would present timing and 'other
problems. As an alternative, staff recommends that the Board consider the three' direct
assignments listed above.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
i
I
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON .71 ira 2�j, ],q$S APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER v
Supervisor Mcpeak recaler>ded and the Board approved the following additions to Camamity Development's
recomended actions: 1. 1 e work program, timetable and budget that is reported back.frcan Cmuunity Development
is to include those designated in the study as Phase II, is to look at the feasibility of the EIR consultants
being able to do sare of the work in the context of the EIR and to coordinate the work between the second
phase study and the EIR so t1"there is no duplication. 2. Calwni.ty Develcpnent is to coordinate with
CCCSanitation District 7A staff on support and input to development of the work plan and the scope of the study.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
/ 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 'TRUE
/UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Camnmity Development ATTESTED June 25, 1985
�1 PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator' SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Health Services
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY.
-. .
. 4 1
Pae 2
Page ,
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
I. Completion of the site in inventory information would require County funding. Although the cost
has not been estimated and would depend on the number of additional sites, the Board wants to
include in an evaluation, it is expected to be modest. Solid waste planning funds could be utilized.
2. The drafting; of evaluation criteria would not require additional direct County funding. Carrying
out this work, however, would necessitate delaying other work.
3. Generally, the comments in Item 1 would also apply to the evaluation study.
BACKGROUND
See attached memorandum.
i
a
a
I
I
l
f
r
C,
1'
i
I,
f
14 _
i
j
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
i .
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: June 25, 1985 R
FROM: Anthony A. DehaeskJe
SUBJECT: Comparative Landfill
-Director of Commuelopment Site Evaluation Means
.I
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors, at its June 18, 1985 meeting, referred the following-item to
the Community Development Department for report on June 25, 1985: -
Direct the EIR consultants responsible for EIR on three pending landfill
disposal applications to include the following:
a. An analysis of the proposed site according to an established set of
criteria developed by the Community Development Department and
approved by the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 1985.
r
b. A comparison of the proposed site with all other potential sites
according to the established criteria. The comparison shall include all
sites identified in the 'CCCSAN report and any other prospective sites
identified during the course of the EIR process and referred to the
consultant by the Board of Supervisors
Staff indicated that: .
- The 41R process is not well suited for carrying out' the kind of comparative
evaluation postulated by the Board.
- Two of the three private-project EIR's already have had their contracts (including
their scopes of services) approved by the Board. The situation, therefore, would
require placing the evaluation in the third project's EIR scope of services, which is
now being prepared, or amending the existing contracts.
i
Page 2
- There are alternate means available to carry out a comparative evaluation.
- Staff would report back to the Board on these alternative means on June 25, 1985.
(This memorandum is the response.)
Since this memorandum concludes that:
- Additional site reconnaissance-level work must be performed in order to include
more than five CCCSD/CCC study sites in a comparative evaluation, and this should
be carried out by a specialist consultant; and
i
- The comparative evaluation itself should also be contracted.
l
1
It is evident. that County funds will be necessary. However, solid waste planning funds
a
can be used, and the cost, although not yet determined, would be considerably less
expensive than the $110,000 previously cited for a complete "Phase II" study (which
included both an evaluation study and on-site work for selecting a "public site"). The
work items ]described in this memorandum would be compatible with subsequent on-.
site studies! to select a "public" or "back-up" site should the Board decide later to
pursue that'course.
A comparative site evaluation problem would involve:
- Additional site inventory work.
- Development of evaluation criteria.
- Carrying out the comparative site inventory.
The following sections of this.memorandum address these subjects.
SITE INVEN•,ITORY (See following diagram)
I
Ln
co
)
H
V
M Z
U W
40
c¢
0. I wIA
�a
r =W a
�.W
« �Q1
LU
• .� A W G
cc Co
CC
* •. -. • . Q SOW
00Nw
a.L)
W-W m
Z cc
M
La
_o V V ^ > _
1--. c3
Z H
N - -
r
i
_ r H
t + ca N .
W
c H
o
� .
C W O w > L
W
E 5•
Z
;w UA
s o N
C «
LL.d iN
j .
i r
Page 3
Phase I CCCSD/CCC Study Site Inventory
i
L .
The site inventory produced _by Phase I of the CCCSD/CCC Waste Management
Project (study) consists of:
- Private-sector project sites (3)
{
- "Recommended" sites, originated and screened by the study (5)*
- Areas suggested for future study (2 areas, 5 or more sites), and
- Sites eliminated during the study (4), as well as, _
- Existing landfill sites (3), not discussed further here because of their lack of long-
term capacities.
The only Phase I sites capable of being subjected to a comparative analysis at this
time are:
- Private-sector sites (3), and
- "Recommended" sites originated by the study (5)
k
(Even, these two categories are hard to compare because:
The study-originated "sites"• essentially are potential fill areas rather than overall
sites. Actual site boundaries were not defined, although the inventorying work did
identify ownership parcels.
Although; this memorandum focuses on the screening criteria, the Phase I recon-
naissance work does involve much more investigation. For example, it included
,
generalized geology and hydrology studies (Technical Memorandum 5) and environ-
mental assessments (Technical Memorandum 12).
i
i
Page 4
- The private-sector sites have had Comprehensive Project Descriptions prepared for
them by their sponsors as' application prerequisites. Those descriptions include
detailed geologic/hydraulic surveys and engineered landfill designs.
- The "Recommended" sites have only the reconnaissance-level site information
developed by Phase I of the CCCSD/CCC study. Detailed on-site landfill design, or
off-site improvements, work could significantly change the data for the sites, and
could even eliminate some).
i
- With one'; exception (Site I-1 -- Christie Road --- which was eliminated late in the
study because of inadequate capacity) only the most cursory information is available
for: j
- Areas suggested for future study, and
- Sites eliminated during the study.
These sites' have not been screened using the Phase I siting criteria. In some cases
(especially sites IV-8 and 9) even the actual landfill canyons remain to be specified.
Extended Site Inventory Project
- If the Board of Supervisors wishes to have a comparison made (at a reconnaissance
level of detail) of a site inventory which consists only of the three private-sector
and the five "Recommended" CCCSD/CCC study sites, no further inventory needs to
be performed.
- If; however, the Board wishes to include some or all of the sites in the "Areas
suggested for future study" group, or the "Sites eliminated during the study" group in
a comparative analysis, then additional site analysis (at the reconnaissance level)
must be performed.
I
l ,
Page 5
Financial Impact
Although the cost of this additional site analysis work has not been estimated -- it
would depend on the number of sites the Board wanted to look at -- it would not be
expensive (unlike the later "Phase II" on-site studies for choosing a site or, more
particularly`, Comprehensive Project Description studies for entitlement applications)
or take a long time. It probably would be eligible for solid waste planning funding. It
should be contracted to a firm specializing in both landfill design and environmental
studies.
i
{
EVALUATION CRITERIA
CCC.SD/CC'C Phase I Study
is
This study utilized two main sets of criteria:
- General Area Selection Criteria (Attachment A). These criteria, addressing
developed areas, parks, reservoirs, wetlands, floodways, and airport proximity, were
applied in the study to exclude areas from consideration (Attachment B). By
definition, all of the sites considered in the study (except for the existing landfills)
met the criteria. Although the criteria remain valid, they have no further use in
evaluating Phase I sites.
- Site Specific Selection Criteria (Attachment C). These criteria were applied to the
site location identified by the study to screen the number to the final five
"Recommended" sites. One criterion preference for non-Williamson Act sites,
proved unworkable (almost all sites were in Agricultural Preserves). The criteria
were also applied to the private-sector sites, which were found to be consistent.
The criteria covered:
Absence of active earthquake. faults
Proximity to transportation routes
{
i
Page 6
Availability of cover material, including impermeable liner and final cover materials
Location,out of existing and planned reservoirs
Minimum acreage
Location;outside of land planned for development
Location outside of military bases (they would not be available in short-term)
The site specific criteria remain applicable for screening new or re-considered sites.
State and Regional Agency Regulatory "Criteria"
I
- California Administrative Code, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 - Discharges of
Waste to`Land. (Appendix D)
Subchapters 15, revised in 1984, establishes regulations, enforced by Regional Water
Quality Control Boards, which apply to landfill sites (geology and hydrology) and
landfill design and construction. The "criteria" inherent in the regulations include:
Separation of waste from water bodies and water-bearing formations
i
Liner requirements
,I
Leachate collection and removal systems
Interim cover requirements
Barrier requirements
-
Design storms and earthquakes
r
I s
i'
I,
r
i
Page 7
Drainage diversion discharges into waterways
Facility closure requirements
Some of the regulations are quite specific (e.g., the permeability rates of liner
material) while others are performance statements which require interpretation by the
engineering and scientific personnel applying them. Regardless, many of them can be
adapted to County criteria. (The original regulations will be enforced by the RWQCB
in any event.)
- California Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, Disposal Site Standards.
This Chapter regulates the operation, or performance, of landfills. The subjects it
addresses (Attachment E) include:
Odor Control
Landfill safety
Landfill gas control
Vector and bird control
i
Leachate control
Waste contact with water
Fires and explosions
Dust c;ritr of
Litter control
Landscaping
i.
J.
i
Page 8
,
i
Final slopes
i
Completed site maintenance
Resource+recovery activities
i
The regulations are often general but become "specific" by being applied in operations
plans which)are submitted by applicants for Waste Facility Permits (the final permits
in the long regulatory process). Since these permits are issued by the Local
Enforcement Agency — the County Health Services Department here — the County
will be applying these "criteria" in any event.
There are two ways these regulations might be used in an evaluation effort:
1 "
{
The regulations could be re-stated as evaluation criteria.
The subject addressed by the regulations could be covered better in some cases. The
regulations are incomplete for the County in some respects (e.g., not requiring site
landscaping!'during the active life of the landfill or the control of off-site litter), but
the Board could expound broader criteria.
�I
- Other State Regulations. There are other state regulations affecting landfills which
Could inspire or help implement County criteria. Those include State Health and
Fish and Game requirements, which are not discussed here. One State requirement
which does warrant attention is the necessity to provide at least a 2,000-foot
separation between hazardous waste facilities and residential developments -- there
is no comparable requirement for non-hazardous landfills.
r
- Baja Areal Air Quality Management District --Landfill Regulations (Appendix F)
The recently-adapted BAAQMD landfill regulations control the release of reactive
gases into the atmosphere.
i,
P 4
ti
s
i - -
P
Page 9
i
Other district regulations control
I,
Odor
i
Dust
Evaluation Criteria Project
l
- Apply the CCCSD/CCC Study's site-specific criteria to screen any additional sites
the Board of Supervisors may wish to include in a general evaluation.
- Direct the Community Development Department staff to draft a set of evalution
criteria to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. This set of evaluation criteria
should reference existing regulatory requirements and may cover the following
subjects (examples):
P,
Site Criteria
Capacity
1
Separation from ground and surface waters
Screening and buffering capabilities
Adequacy of cover material
Relationship to adjoining land uses
Relationship to access routes and development "
Habitat qualities
Cultural and archaeological finds.
i
i
l Page 10
Design Criteria
Leachate control features
Odor control features
Noise control features
Run-off and erosion control features
Screening and buffering features
Landscaping plan
i
I
Seismic stability criteria
R.
Resi ource recovery
Closure design
Operations Criteria
Leachate monitoring
Odor control
Noise control
Fire protection
Vector and bird control
Dust control
• s
i'
1
Page II
Litter control
Other Criteria
Transportation and public services system impacts
fi
Disposal cost impacts
Post-closure maintenance
t
Financial Impacts
- The application of the CCCSD/CCC Site Specific Criteria to additional sites would
be part of the site-information study discussed previously.
t
- No additiolnal funding would be required for staff to draft the evaluation criteria
discussed above; however, work priorities would have to be adjusted. `
f
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SITES
- CCCSD/CCC Study Site Evaluation
As previously noted, the Phase I study was intended to identify a small group of sites
for a subsequent site selection effort, not to compare those final sites.
- Private-Sector Site Environmental Impact Reports Alternative Analyses
l
- Landf ifl Site EIR Alternatives Analyses
F
Page 12
Pursuant to the California,Environmental Quality Act and the State's and local
CEQA Guidelines, EIR's include alternatives analysis. These analysis are intended to
"disclose" the alternatives to the project, not to duplicate the EIR's evaluation of
the project itself. Real, not speculative, impacts are required to be addressed, as is
the "no project" alternative.
The scopes of services of the EIR's contracted for the private-sector landfill sites
provide for jthe review of four generic alternatives, including the "no project"
alternative and a "regional system" alternative.* The EIR for the Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill will utilize the following alternatives:
i
I. No project
Other site use (owners' alternatives)
Export to other landfills (public's alternative)
2. Modified, Project (currently unspecified)
3. Substitution of other project(s) (substitution of one or more of the other private
sector projects)
4. Regional System Alternatives (analysis of including the proposed project, or a
substitute in its "service area" or "quadrant", in a generic system of landfills
serving different parts of the County). This is the representational system
depicted; incompletely at this stage, in the diagram of the start of this report.
The system is speculative, but it is directly related to the "real" proposed project.
The scopes` of services also require substantial dependence on the findings and data
of the Acme Landfill EIR/EIS and the CCCSD/CCC study.
f
i
Page 13
i
i
EIR alternative analyses, with their focus on their subject projects, are not the best
means for (;accomplishing the -comparative evaluations of a large number of sites,
particularly, when the other sites are not actual projects. In the case of the private-
sector site.;EIR's, the scopes of services for two already have been included in two
contracts, and the third is being prepared. It would appear to be more practicable to
arrange for a separately contracted evaluation study.
j
1
Comparative Site Evaluation Project
- If it is the Board's wish to carry out a comparative evaluation of a number of
potential'landfill sites (utilizing the current or an expanded site inventory, and the
set: of evaluation criteria previously discussed), it should contract for the prepar-
ation of a special study.
- The Board should direct the Community Development Department to arrange for the
preparation of a site comparative evaluation study.
Financial Impacts
The site evaluation study would require County funding. However, as a planning study,
rather than an implementation effort, it should be eligible for solid waste planning
monies. These monies are obtained from tipping fee surcharges, and their use should.
have no effect on the County General Fund.
CZ:gm s
cz.C;.SEV6
Attachments
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
Health`Services.Department
s
r
i
f
i
i
4i
4) �
-j x x' x x x
N U�
o
4-)
U
N UI X X X X X
1 W
O
4-) i
>
YI X X X X X
,
d r-0 rC0^ O m t0 OC I UM
E 'C Y (D >1 m E S- 4) O U Q•r
O C +) t0 N C •r U N•r 0 >
S- r •r $- m c0 •r C i •r L N >)Q
•r•r C. u) S-
N•r C 0 4-)4- O 10 10 4-1 L S- a O S-
u 'v •r S- 3 o U a) U C U (U
C t0 r-. t0 0 L N r 1 '0•n >1 7 4)'0
r 4- = S- r +)r 4--0 N o r- r w (L
U O 04-3 O 4-) .0 C t0 'C u-
X r- L 10L 3 -3 r r- U = o N 4) C C
Y S N 4- 0 4J -0 '0 M 0 0
4)4- 0 Z v 4J O 'v r- C) (D 0)
.0-0 4-) (0 N C•r to d 0 0 >1 N 4- r C'0
C •r• C.'Q t0 0 +)L U G) .0 0 O O a)
rr-
to N C r- C (n CO 4-3 O .0 O E •r N
r-r- 0 t0 +)•r- t0 U 'a -0 +)L 04-) C
•r r- 4-3 r tv 4-1 O O N 0 "0 N S.• +) S- (0-0—
to
S-0^t0 t0 t0 3 C S- r- S- i r N O
(n +) CM o10 a) :3 :3CtA s_ C
S- O (n C ^ U O S- h-) N Q) S`.C)
00 O C. •r 17) .0 3 r L >)-r- U +) N C I
01 4- N S--D U U C 4-) N Co t0 O N C 4J C)
r •r O C •r•r•r +) 10 C 3 r (0 O N
N •C C r r >) O O t0 t0 C >14- U C LO
>) 0 r O O C 4- C S- U N O L O •r-
r-• +) t0 t0 S- C.t0•r - (0 -1- f- S- (0 L 'v w L
t0 C S- i +) 'C 4- rtf •r U N 0
r7� S- O O D-
o
U'II.0 r �•r >>4- Cr S- -0
•r O•r N•r C >) 0) 0 0 0 =3 S`
4- -0 4- 0) L U L Z7 o t0 0) t0 e0 •r N O L O
O C O'II N m -r L r- •r N +-) +) N U
C[ t0 N S- C S- N C. (n O E (1) U 4- C)•r C
r , N U C t0 0) L S- C 'C t.1 O 0•r O W L O
ar to O C C +) N•r O ow N S-4- S- 3•r'
W N •r•r N 3 •r 4-3 4) 0 .0 •r- 4- 4)r- N+•��
•p t0 +) S- O 3 t0'a •r r -0 O N RSL t0
f- N RS N•r $ N N 4='0 +)O O N +)tD S-
of- C. C U S- O S- d 'C r- B O C) S- O n4-3
U O O O CO >•r U L'r- r- S- C 4) 4) ^ C.4- 01 N
r- •r r- S- O C m ORS t0 O 0 4-LP) N N O
Z O 4) ++3 O >• t0"- > N V^ 3 'C •r -r-
>
r C
> t0 0 t0 N S- 'o L t0 O r C) C L '0 d 4-•r
tL L. +).0 o N S- r SZ I >) 'C C) •r I ' O O E
•p O e0 +) S- N O C N r N O 4-) C O L N C) 'O
W • N•r •r N
S. S- U O 4- -0 r- U U O•r . 4J Q
t0 N -0 R7 0 t0 E r-'O t0 r 3 N C Q' C
W .jy O C C C +) N r C N O C. O C. S- OU 0
S- O t0 t0 t0 L C L T t0 L L t0 L 4- S- >1 O•r IY -r--
U
rU t- 3 +) r i O 3 r- H 4j U H O O 4J 4- +)—4J
QQ �
W .. ..
W O O O O O
2 Q •S- '� i •S- •S-
Q W +) 4-3 4J +) 4)
•S- ' i •i •L L
Ur U U U U U
0
s .
Nil.N
\ rja' Z
' c�
GO
AV
y
.+ „'sEi: •tom � ' � �♦
v i
A
l
io
G ?! w
N M
2
N
a)
J X X X X X
N U
L
O
4J
U '
Q) U X X X X X
N U
1 W
a)
` a Y X X X X X
a)
.0
O () O a..)
a) i }> w
N '• C >) e0 t a) 1 4-'C to
a) i0 r- -i-'4-) t a) to 4- O C a)
a)
04-) a) +-)r L a i r i o to U
C +) O V) i•- IA t0 () E a.•r () 4J C
o a) o a) W +-) X +) o v o C 4J ^
C U U •C >) L +) 'C C`r co i (L)v N•r C O N >>
Y Q O r +-) O w (1) vi E 4- +-) C
U r O:r C O O O E t0 r0 a) E 'C•r >
to O^ o E 0 i +J M a)4- i >> U +) t0 Q) a) O C
•p =
0 -•r •"r -r ;.t L O Z) a)r O'•r i +> > O
C a) i V! X +3-L V) U a) >-1:� r a) to i•r b L U
O Vl t0 It O (0 ^ E E•r O (0-0 L I O O U a)
Q a) N L 4J O X C•r O 4- U L () a)•r C 4- C' O VA'C
a rn >, to a L rn-� Q E-r a) u .0 to o ()
a) O rC a) O N o& +-) r 4- t0 Q ^ i
+j i O i a) a 4- i (L) X C r- a)r •C E +> >> a) r0
C a V) C) t0 rn N O C a) 0 as a) it L 06 r•r C i r- -010 L
U C C) o C t0 +) td E a d a O w to•r a) a)
o a) o • r r r0 N.0•r () :r a) i O (1)•r N o T) C d
r L -r r r6 U i a) +-) i i r0 •Q ^ t - U V1 (A r C o r-
4-)
d-) 4J r- U U C •t- (A a) w %r a) to 1 to
a) to O C i C•C a) > 0 .0 +3 4- U a) O r >> C
C r C G.•r-0 E a) /n•r C (1) O O O 04- a)r t C•+•) CC
•r- O t0 N t a) 3•r (0 .0 L•"r r +) C O C N •r U
{-) M= -r +J C N a) .0 (1) d+-)r •r N t0 L >
Q'C a) +) -0 •r •r 4- 4-).0 a) a) r0 •r- N r 4- a) Vf O to to
C O L 3 to C (U > +-) L 3 r a) •.- N a) i 4-)•r i a) 4-) 4- C)r i c0 V1 (U r•r L E N4-) C) m N
•C 4-t1') 4) . +•)•C C d a) t0 3 t0 ^ (1) (U •r C tO
r•�r C) (0 a)•r 4J 4.) E O N N L1 r. H•r
O +- C 'C +-) CO •r >) 3 to O O i a) C E +- C
o C a) O •r t0 Er- 4- () a) >)4- 0.a) i t0•r L r to to RS
L a) r O a U 1 .0 M to 04-) +-r a) to +-) a) O Co•r L
N•G 4- >> C O >> N (V Q.(U •r •r'r i •r to C N VI X 4- 4J
•r •r e0 r 4-3 t0 4-) t6 i-) E NW r0 'C 3 4-) L- V O a) O C
tn'�+3 +) U C a) U = Q •C a) a) a) () Q O
W a) -0 r N O i a) >) O E a) () .0 W-0 a) >+J to V) 4- 4J U
►- +> d•) O 7 C.G O to 0..0 L•r +J +) L +3 +) C L O m \ •r O C
i--t •r r to t0 'r U N C Rf co O (0 O a) U 4J E a () a)
N 4- C >) C'C a)•r•C -04- a) a O t N U (A E.0
w .i.)r:O >1•r a) N E•'-'. •r L or L a r r +J C
U r 4- M 10 •r .0 C.r r a a •t7 'C a) 10 C) t0 aw to•r
C to O N 3 i r L 3 R)to t0 r a) 4- L t0 C C a) r- C A C.0 1 •r E •r Vf
^ 1 r0 .a • +� t0 t0 a r -r 4J O +�•r r t0
o-r O > () 4-) to O a):r 4-) r U U•w- U r .a 4- r C r Rf
d�r r r a)4- 4J +-r C E'r O t0 .G t0 4-3 a) t
U V) +J +) O +) a) t0 •r• r () O +-) 3 () O' a) () t0 i L a) X +) U
LU •r- U 'r t0 •r i +J C`r TJ L C a) aC () L t= V) a) O a) O r N =
J D t0 F- 4- N C. N t� 3•r 4- O C H L b H 7 4-4- E N
W
N � .•
U O C C C C C
U ►-+ +3 O O O O O
W N •'- :r •r
F-r-+ L L i L i
Z U U a) a) a) O a)
W W U
S N Sr- •i •i L •L
6
U D U U U U U
Q W N
t~•+ U
Q N U r• N M Ch 1')
s •
N
d
•r J X X X 1 i
N U
i
G
U
N U X X X X 1
1 W
d ,
4-%
>
S- C_ X X X
CX. Y
" 1 C •r d N
r- d :i +-) O O d d C i-) d
d b •� I U U C-rE C C.0 +-) O d U
.r C d (0 to V)' d %r •r' N r O S-
S-
i d > 4-- E ^ d i E:a +) d
E t0 N O `r N t0 U i to C O t0 d > U t0 t6 C.
•r t0 4- N d d t r- O M r•r U f0 0r C.C
C d •.0 N t U 4- (6 •F•) d i C t U r O O O
•r•O N Nd d4-) •r O N V)•O U d d •r"r r > 01
E•r i d•O .0•r 4- S- O O O 07•r +-) i N 4-ter' d•� i
> d d 3•r C.4 C-4J C C-r G) d •r.3 > O1 d
It O O a) +) 4-) >y U t- (n U•'-t i 4- 4••) U a) r
S- >1r C N O C i v) d f0 N — d >> U U d•r d d•O d
W a r- d c d to •r a 'a C_r- a) i (A C.= .04-
> C)•r 'O i E 4-) fn N C d N C.+•1 d C. N 4.3 d O
to O N 3 c 0 'D C• •r' CO 1 d r- CO c C_ Vr d f r-r-
.0 4J f0 +) r- O r--0 d >•C •r d N d d e- d 01.0, S-
4-)
i-) d r- U O r •r 4-):r t0 i •r a 4-) C f0•i- d
'O N N +A O O O E r •r <T i O N >1-C 4-3 C 90 :r•r i 3.0
r d t6•r "o i .0 > t0 (n t0 4-.0 ,04-) d i N'C) f0' E
t' O i d N C i••) N d ^ O d Q_ M > t0 O a.d O
0L)r - t6 N �'O a) O' d E d r• 'O C C•r C. i r- E U C
r d t O r r- C'r•r M E d U O C
N 43 d t'0 4-3 d .0 4J r- U .0 •r to
O (0 4-) +3 C. r i t6 C r- t0 3 r- 'O r- d U U i N
W O U C.t0 r- O +) d O1•r (V +) d CL-0 O d d d
4-)M 4- d d •r C 3.V) •r N i•r .C. d i 4- 3
•r O 'O N U O O C •r •0- O '0 d 4- f0 r N d C O d d
T7 d 4- N O >1'O 3 N C t •r r•r L O E �4- C-
r- Cl) V)r- t0 4- r• C S- (0 •N 4••) 'i•r- 3 4-):- C_ •r
+� r d 4- r 0 i N-0 a to d N r O C d 3 4-) S d
C CO 4.) •r d•r i r O tO d C.r C fO d +3 i r t0 O' --c N
O N CO r- M 4- d 4- 4••) r0 4-► •N r--0 4- N d r U 104.) S-
u
U O E 4J d N -0 U >> O 'O U r•r f0•O t tO O O d d
C.•r d N 4J 010 d d i i d Q t0 C 4J r- 3+r 4- C
N X U4- M•r C_ d r M-d t0 O •'r to ^ d O 01 4-)4- O 3
Q •r O:r0 N N4-) 4- N 4.) i-) 3. 4- C L•r i r- C d •r- O
t--+ i > N 1 •r- R •r C 4-r 4-)-a •r 04-) i d O •r r -4-3 O)
C_ i d i C a C 4-)•'r Q r d 4- 1/)':r d > 4-) 3 >>..0^ C C d
W d C. d O) O O tm C •r d'►•- c E 3 +) d U +•) r t6 C d-r +)
1- •-) CO N d 4-) -V •r d d E S- 4- d tO — 3 Q C •I) O'O +-) t6
t-t t0 d U'O d N 'o -C I d•r 'O •r N i O d C_CL-r--r N S-
-04-
`-04- d i t0 C ' N d •r •O C L 4J •r r•r U 2 C i•O co d S- :r f6
U •r O r U 4- CO 0 "0 >r C 0 3 C r N ' O d d U d d N C._
C .0 tO C_ f>)r- f0 C d V1•r d U (n.0•r i U4-) i C d
Z C d t0 .0 N O lo CO r• r • N'O t0 3.0+r- E 3 4- d t6'r- 0 O N
CO' 00 01+-)r- U i i C d t6 ^ d'r d 4- E t0 •r 4-) i U
t--t u t0 C. f0 O d C_t0 i -r- i t0 N S` ^r-•r O N }) 4- C U N S-
Q)
d d O N 4- r- 46 i-) d•"r O C t0 >) f0 U*0 r• d C f0 (a d d d
U (D i U4-) 4- d •"r S >` d 4- O d C r N d +-) +-) +-)•O
W .0 U U U C O .0 C C C +-) d C d C •r Q C,d to-0 4- C U 4-'-r C
J F- td f0 CO 0.0 H O )--) r O 4J•r t-H r d V) i 3 U•r t-y 4-Q V) (A O
W
N
U C C C C C
►-+ O O C O O
U d d d d d
W 4J +) i•) 4-) 4-)
G- r •1-
:r •r w-
v)
U U U U U
W
V) tO 14Q. 00 C1 r
i
ATTACHMENT D
i -
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD LANDFILL REGULATIONS
Introduction
On October 18 1984, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted revised
regulations concerning water quality requirements for sanitary landfills. These
are found in the California Administrative Code Title 23, Chapter 3, Sub-Chapter
15. This paper describes the new regulations as they apply to new Class II and
Class III sanitary landfills. Sub-chapter 15 also contains regulations for Class
I facilities, existing disposal sites, surface impoundments, waste piles, etc.
The revised Sub-Chapter 15 regulations contain new classifications for disposal
facilities. Class I facilities are for hazardous waste. Class III facilities
are for non-hazardous waste. Class II facilities can take all wastes that go to
a Class III landfill , plus "designated wastes". Designated wastes are non-
hazardous wastes which require special treatment. Designated wastes will be
allowed in Class II landfills on a case-by-case basis, based on the compatibility
of the designated waste with other wastes in the landfill and compatibility with
the control features of the particular Class II landfill .
Groundwater Protection
For Class II facilities, the disposal site must "isolate" waste from ground and
surface watersi. Waste must not be placed closer than five feet above any ground
water. A "sufficient thickness" of natural clay soil with a permeability of' at
least 1x10-6 cm/sec must be present to prevent ground water contamination. The
staff of the State Water Resources Control Board has indicated that "sufficient
thickness" is 'about 10 feet for a Class II facility. If these sufficient natural
conditions are not available, a compacted clay liner of a permeability of 1x10-6
.
cm/second must be constructed with a minimum thickness of two feet. Natural or
constructed underground barriers to prevent lateral movement of waste and water
must also be present. A leachate collection and removal system must be installed.
This is done by placing a permeable blanket of material (usually gravel ) on the
bottom of the landfill to allow any leachate generated to flow to a specific area
in the landfill for removal and disposal . • The soil zone underneath the liner
must be monitored for leakage. Concerning Holocene earthquake faults (faults
considered active) , control structures for the landfill must be set back 200 feet
from the fault.
For Class IIII landfills, "adequate separation" of waste from ground and surface
water must be obtained. No impairment of beneficial uses of ground or surface
water is, allowed. Waste must not be placed closer than five feet above any ground
water. The natural underlying soil must meet the criteria for "adequate separa-
tion" . No Specific standards are stated so the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards will make this determination. If natural conditions do not meet the
criteria, a single clay liner of a permeability at least 1x10-6 cm/sec, a minimum
one foot thick must be installed with a leachate collection and removal system.
The construction requirements for a leachate_ collection and removal system for a
Class III landfill are less stringent than a Class II .landfill . A leachate
collection and removal system is also needed if sludges are accepted at the
landfill , even if a liner is not required. The landfill cannot be sited upon a
Holocene fault, but no setback requirements are specified. No liquid waste can
be accepted at a Class III landfill .
Surface Water Protections
Both Class II and Class III sanitary landfills require flood protection from a
100-year frequency storm for protection of inundation and washout. For a Class
II facility, surface drainage facilities must be designed for a 1000-year frequency
storm. For a Class III sanitary landfill , the surface drainage facilities must
be designed for a 100-year frequency storm.
Other Requirements
The regulations call for new final cover requirements for all landfills. Four
feet of final cover are required, including one foot of soil with a permeability
of 1x10-6 cm/sec or less. Landfill owners are required to establish an irrevocable
closure fund, or equivalent guarantees to ensure financing of closure and post-
closure maintenance. A load checking program must be established at each landfill
to inspect for non-allowed waste (usually hazardous -waste) . Extensive new
monitoring requirements are imposed on all new landfills subject to review on a
case-by-case basis by the Regional Water Quality Control .Boards.
- i
ATTACHMENT E
The listed Items of Concern are covered by the indicated section
numbers of Article 7, Disposal Site Standards, Chapter 3, Division
7, Title 14, C.A.C. or not at all.
1. Odors "17713. Odor Control. (H) The disposal site shall not
be a source of odor nuisances. "
Prevention of odors escaping the site is accomplished by
daily cover. Extremely odorous wastes (e.g. sewage sludge)
can be covered immediately upon dumping with other wastes
and dirt.
2. Landfill Gas - Methane. "17705. Gas Control. Where the Enforce-
ment Agency, the local fire control authority, or the Board
has cause to believe a hazard or nuisance may be created by
landfill decomposition gases, they shall so notify the owner.
Thereafter, the site owner shall cause the site to be monitored
for presence and movement of gases, and shall take necessary
action to control such gases. The site owner shall inform
the operator of any actions ordered by the Enforcement Agency,
the local fire control authority or the Board concerning gas
control methods. ' The monitoring program shall be developed
pursuant to the specifi6ations of the above agencies. The
site- pwner shall provide for continuation of the program
after the completion of the landfill. The monitoring program
shall not be discontinued until authorized to do so in writing
by the requiring agency. Results of the monitoring shall be
submitted to the appropriate agencies. If monitoring indicates
methane gas movement away from the site, the owner shall,
-2-
within a period of time specified by the requiring agency,
construct a gas control system approved by that agency. The
agency may waive this requirement if .,satisfactory evidence
is presented indicating that adjacent properties are safe
from hazard or nuisance caused by methane gas movement. The
operator shall duly inform the disposal site owner of possible
landfill gas problems. "
For new disposal sites a gas control system can be incorporated
in the design of the site and constructed as the site fills
with wastes.
3. Vectors - Rats and Flies. "17707. Vector and Bird Control.
(H) The operator shall take adequate steps to control or
prevent the propagation, harborage or attraction of flies,
rodents or other vectors and to minimize bird problems. "
Vectors (rats, flies, etc. ) can be eliminated by daily cover.
Routine service by a private pest control company can assure
there will be no vector problems. The' Vector Control Section
of the Environmental Health Division-Health Services Depart-
ment surveys disposal sites regularly to determine if rats
are present.
The presence of flies is determined during each routine
inspection by the LEA.
4. Bird Control. 17707. Vector and Bird Control. See
quotation in #3.
-3-
A variety of noise makers and a system of wires strung over
a disposal site will minimize bird problems. Daily cover
helps, also.
5. Leachate - Ground and Surface Water Quality. "17704. Leachate
Control. The operator shall take adequate steps to monitor,
collect, treat, and effectively dispose of leachates . "
"17709. Contact with Water. No solid waste shall be deposited
in such a manner that it has direct contact with either sur-
face! or ground water, except as approved by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. "
The Regional Water Quality Control Board establishes a
detailed leachate control program before a site is opened.
The operator hires a private company to monitor the program
and report to the RWQCB and the local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
(County Health Services Department-Environmental Health Division) .
Staff of the RWQCB inspects routinely for compliance. The LEA
inspects routinely and if it finds a leachate problem, it re-
ports to the RWQCB.
6. Fires and Explosions. "17703. Fire Control. The operator shall
take &&equate measures for prompt fire control as required by
local fire authorities. "
1117741. Burning Wastes. If burning wastes are received; they
shall be deposited in a safe area and extinguished. If burning
wastes have been placed in a working face, they shall be im-
mediately excavated, spread and extinguished. The operator
-4-
shall seek advice and concurrence from local fire authorities
regarding safe areas -and means of extinguishing burning wastes. "
The local fire district establishes requirements for each
site and the LEA requires that the Operation Plan for a site
indicate how fires will be prevented and controlled.
7. Dust Control. "17706. Dust Control. The 'operator shall take
adequate measures to minimize the creation of dust. "
Roads can be constructed and treated to minimize dust and
each site is required to have a water tank truck to sprinkle
to minimize dust.
8. Litter. (Including Access Roads) . "17711. Litter Control.
Litter and loose materials shall be routinely collected and
disposed of properly. The collection frequency shall be set
with the objective of preventing the accumulation of quantities
which are esthetically objectionable or cause other problems.
The Enforcement Agency shall periodically monitor the effective-,
ness of the litter control program."
This section deals .with.., on-site litter only.
Each site must have a program to prevent windblown waste from
escaping from the site.
The operators of each of our existing sites routinely clean up
the roads immediately adjacent to their sites voluntarily.
-5-
9. Landscaping - Aesthetics - Visibility. "17627. Ultimate Use
of S:ite. The site design shall show one or more proposed uses
of the •site toward which the operator will direct his efforts
or shall 'show development as open space, graded to harmonize
with the setting and landscaped with native shrubbery or low
maintenance ground cover. "
"17679. Final Site Face. The slope of those portions of the
fill. which will be the final exterior surface shall have a
neat: finished appearance, and shall not be steeper than a
horizontal to vertical ratio of one and three quarters to one
(1 3/4:1) . Flatter slopes are more desirable for improved
appearances of surfaces which face residential properties
and roads and other property frequented by the public. The
enforcement agency may require flatter slopes or benches
where necessary for successful establishment of ground cover
or erosion control. Waivers of maximum slope may be granted
by the Board upon submittal of adequate justification and the
concurrence of the enforcement agency. "
"17734. Completed Site Maintenance. If problems such as
leachate or extensive surface cracking or settlement develop
that result in environmental degradation or public health
hazards, the owner shall notify the enforcement agency. The
owner shall monitor such problems and promptly repair or
abate defective conditions for a period of five years after
completion of the site, unless a longer period is required
by the board, the enforcement agency, the California Regional
-6-
Water Quality Control Board, or other affected agencies be-
cause of specific known or anticipated problems. Prior to
the construction of improvements on completed sites, such
projects must be submitted to the enforcement agency for re-
view and comment concerning possible construction problems,
hazards to health and safety, and factors which might affect
the improvements. "
A disposal site is required to be landscaped only when it
is closed. Post closure maintenance is required for at
least five years.
10. Noise. "17712. Noise Control. (H) Noise shall be controlled
to prevent health hazards to persons using the site and to
nearby residents. "
The Operation Plan of the site must contain a program to
minimize noise.
11. Traffic. "17714. Traffic Control-. Traffic flow into, on, and
out of the disposal site shall be in accord with the design
intent and in such a manner so as to minimize possible inter-
ference and safety problems for traffic on adjacent public
streets or roads. Specifically, stacking of vehicles waiting
to enter the site on public streets or roads may only occur
as approved by local traffic engineering and police authorities. "
The design of the disposal site must provide for safe ingress
and egress and circulation on site.
-7-
12. Resource Recovery Opportunities .
There are no state laws or standards that the LEA enforces
that require resource -recovery to be practiced at a disposal
site; however, "17687. Salvaging Permitted. Recovery of
materials such as metal, paper, and glass , is permitted as
an ;integral part of the operation of a site. Salvaging shall
be conducted only in a planned and controlled manner.
Salvaging shall not interfere with other aspects of site
operation, nor shall it be conducted so as to interfere with
expeditious entry and egress of vehicles delivering waste to
the site. "
"17688. ,Volume Reduction and Energy Recovery.; Volume reduction
such as incineration, baling, shredding, ocnposting, pyrolysis,
and. materials and energy recovery operations are permitted
in conjunction with site operation provided they are con—
ducted in a controlled manner as an integral part of the
operation and provided there is no interference with the
proper construction and maintenance of the site nor creation
of health, safety or environmental problems. "
"17689. Processing Area. 'To the greatest degree practicable,
salvaging, volume reduction, and resource recovery shall be
confined to specified, clearly identifiable areas of the site
as approved by the Enforcement Agency. "
Resource recovery is practiced at each of our three existing
disposal sites.
4
-8-
13. Habitat Preservation.
There are no state law's or standards enforced by the LEA
that require the preservation of the habitats of endangered
or non-endangered species of flora or fauna..
In addition to these specific Items of Concern the state Disposal
Site Standards cover a wide variety of additional concerns. Some
of these are:
Safety - perimeter fencing and warning signs
Potable water supply
. Sewage disposal
Health and Safety of employees
Equipment availability
Lighting '
Communication facilities
Employee training
Supervision
Record keeping
Accessibility for inspection
The Report of Disposal Site Information and the Operation Plan
which dust be submitted with.the application for a solid Waste
Facilitie's' Permit to the LEA and the California Waste Management
Board must indicate how the disposal site will be operated and
maintained to comply with the state laws and standards.
• i ,
ATTACHMENT F
13AY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LANDFILL REGULATIONS
On May 2, 1984, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 34
concerning landfill operations. The purpose of this Rule is to regulate organic
compounds (principally methane) from sanitary landfills. A landfill can be exempt
from the requirements of Rule 34 until it has less than one million tons of solid
waste disposed of in place. However, a new sanitary landfill should be cognizant
of the requirements of this regulation and design landfill gas control measures
into its operations. It takes less than 1-1/2 years to accumulate one million
tons of solid wastes if only one landfill serves the entire County.
The regulation basically calls for collection of gases in the landfill . Collection
may be accomplished in connection with a resource recovery system for methane gas.
The collected gases can be burned or flared on site, treated to result in a 90
percent reduction in organic compounds, or distributed into a fuel line.
In addition to Rule 34, landfills must meet other Bay Area Air Quality Management
District regulations concerning odors and dust, and also from possib-le point
sources such as from fuel loading or operations of equipment.
0
i
J 1 . landfill planning Aug 27 7 pm
workshop fixed
i 2 . waste disposal sites