ARCHIVED REPORTS_2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comment 11: The JTD, Page 4-9, Section 4.3.1, indicates that the soil needs for daily, intermediate, and operations layers were added together to derive the maximum contaminated soil limit. The actual site needs should reflect an average and not a peak amount. Revise to include a reasonable average tonnage limit. Response: Based on current records (2005), Section 4.3.1 was revised to provide actual site needs for the acceptance of beneficial reuse materials for both daily average and maximum limits. Comment 12: The JTD, Page 4-9, Section 4.3.2, states, "Therefore, on days when less waste is received the site can accept more loads of the beneficial reuse materials." Would the number of additional loads of beneficial reuse material be based on site needs? If the material accepted were for future use, how would it be handled, stored and tracked? Please explain. Response: Section 4.3.2 has been revised. Comment 13: On Page 4-10, Section 4.5, of the JTD, "weekly averages" is worded such that it appears that the facility is accepting "35,987 tons, six days a week." Revise to reflect actual conditions at the site. Response: Section 4.5 has been revised. Comment 14: The JTD, Page 4-11, Section 4.5, states "discussions with the LEA resulted in the conclusions that ash and cement kiln dust are believed to have similar properties to PGM and that C&D material is believed to have similar properties to treated auto shredder residue." See comment 10 listed above. There was no conversation regarding similar properties. It was based on the fact that the facility uses very little or no ash and cement kiln dust as ADC. Revise to remove any reference to the discussion with the LEA. Response: Section 4.5 has been revised to delete the reference to discussions with the LEA. Comment 15: The JTD, Page 4-12, Section 4.7.1, indicates that the site life estimate is reduced. This issue was raised on the previous JTD amendment review (August 2005). The Environmental Health Department (EHD) asked for an explanation in writing of the change in site life and has not received it. Please provide a written explanation. Response: A letter was sent to the Environmental Health Department (Mr. Robert McClellon) on May 2, 2006 to address the reduced site life estimates. This letter discussed the factors affecting site life estimates, provided a summary of the landfill's airspace and site life estimates, and, finally, provided 3 J:\Allied\Forward\JTD Amendment\March 2006 JTD-LEA Resp\JTD\Response to LEA comments.doc;5/16/2006