Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> accidents at file landfill or during taste transport c+sL cause injury, t,) site workers, the general <br /> public, or the environment. The Site Operations Plan tiva�, completed in 1y96. The California <br /> Administrative Code of Regulations was modified to consolidate l'itle 14 and Title 23 into_) Title <br /> L 27; this was an administrative improvement to) cr)nst)likiate thr­ RVVQCB acid C1WMB <br /> requirements for landfills,ensuring that reporting and subm.issioms of data are no)t redundant. <br /> Mitigation Measures L.3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program <br /> would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. <br /> c. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation hworporatiorl: Additional landfill gas would be <br /> generated, thus increasing the potential for explosion .hazards. The suggested landfill gas <br /> control installations bi the 1994 FIR have already been implemented, along with the training of <br /> the operators. These are documented ill the 1996 Austin Road Landfill Disposal Site <br /> Information report. In addition to the installation suggested in the 1994 E1R, some additional <br /> landfill gas extraction wells were installed, .responding to the discovery of elevated gas levels <br /> (beyond that allowed by the regulatory community) emanating from the northeastern part of <br /> the landfill. The reporting of these higher gas levels was reported to the CIWMB. In early 1998 <br /> the C1WMB, mainiv in response to the gas detections in the .northeast part of the landfill, issued <br /> a formal SWM Order to the Cite. The Order included entering into a scheduled compliance <br /> agreement. By October 1995, in response to the higher than permissible gat, detections reported <br /> in the northeastern part of the landfill, and xvith the approval of the ClVVMB, the Cite installed <br />! and brought on i.ine an additional 12 vapor extraction wells to complement the existing gas <br /> collection systerin. Mitigation Measures LA(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), anon(g) of the Mitigation <br /> Monitoring/Reporting Program would continue to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant <br /> i <br /> level. <br /> Solid waste contains pathogens that could spread by vectors. No significant change from the <br /> + 1994 EIR C01lCt kSionS is expected. The procedures in place at the existing landfill shall be <br /> I continued,in use at the expanded Iandfill. !llitigatiorl Measure.s L.5 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of tile. <br /> Mitigation Monihlring/Reporting Program y,'I)uld reduce this impact to a less-than-significant <br /> } level. <br /> d. Less Than Significant with Mitigation hioo rpo)ration: Because the project site includes an <br /> existing landfill, it is listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section. <br /> 65962.5. Compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements, i:nClUding the San <br /> Joaquin County Public Health Services Solid Waste Facilities Permit 111111 and the State Water <br /> Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/Central Valley Regional Water-Quality Control Board <br /> (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirement; the operating and ellvii'onnlental monitoring <br /> procedures described in Fina l Design Study Deport fou' the Austin Road Landfill Expansion (R. <br /> W. Beck and Associates,June 1993); and the.mitigation measures specified i.n the Mitigation <br /> Monitoring/Reporting Program, including Mitigation Measures K.2(a), (b), and (c), K.5(a), (b), <br /> (c), (d), and (e), K.6(a), K.5(a), (b), (c),and (d), L-1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (0, and (g), L.2(a), (b),and <br /> (c), L.3(a), (•b), (c), (d), and (e), LA(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), and L.5(a), (b), (c), and (d), and <br /> K.8(a)'and (b) of the Mitigation Morlitorill-/Reporti,lg Progra.nl, would reduce the impacts to a <br /> less-than-significant level. <br /> e. Less Than Significant with Mitigation lncorporation: As stated in the FIR, the proposed <br /> project would expand landfill activities withiai 10,000 feet of a Stockton Metropolitan Airport <br /> runway. The Airport has not experienced problems tivith landfill-related bird hazards to <br /> aircraft. Therefore, it is not anticipated that proximity of airport operations would result ill a <br /> safety hazard to landfill workers or visitors. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures A.3(a), (b), (c), <br /> and (d) of the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program are intended to prevent future safety <br /> hazards, and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. <br /> -23- <br />