ARCHIVED REPORTS_1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Direct haul to the Foothill Landfill as presented as Alternative B would be the most expensive alternative because of longer hauls for most users of the existing Harney Lane Landfill. Energy consumption, using petroleum derived fuels, caused by the haul to this site and vehicle emis- sions would be greater than from other alternatives. Alternative C included use of the Foothill Landfill from one of the three transfer options. The first transfer option (C-1) consisted of transfer at Lodi, while the second option (C-2) included transfer at a site midway between Lodi and Stockton. The third transfer option (C-3) consisted of transfer at both sites mentioned -in the first two options (C-1 and C-2). The cost differentials between these three options is not significant. Alternative C-3 has lower transportation costs than C-1 or C-2 but would have higher facil- ity costs because of operating two transfer stations instead of one. Alternative D includes the use of disposal at a new central county landfill, Austin Road Landfill or Forward, Inc. Landfill from transfer at Lodi (D-1) or at a site midway between Lodi and Stockton (D-2). Both of these alternatives are similar in cost to the three options mentioned in Alternative C. However, Alternative D requires a central county landfill. Existing cen- tral county landfills either are not permitted for municipal refuse or do not have adequate capacity. Expansion of existing landfill capacities and/or exten- sion of their permits to include refuse would probably receive strong opposi- tion from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Stockton Metropol- itan Airport due to the bird hazard potential. Alternatives C and D include the use of transfer stations to haul to other landfills in the county. Both alternatives are similar in terms of costs being less than direct haul to the Foothill Landfill and more than expansion or replacement of the existing site. Impacts would be common to both Alternatives C and D and can be mitigated. The main advantage of these alternatives would appear to be the centralization of disposal in the county. However, as discussed earlier, a new central county landfill would be required. The main disadvantage would be the greater costs incurred by implementation of these alternatives. The cost savings to the public were an incentive to secure a new north county disposal site for north county refuse. The San Joaquin County Solid Waste Policy Committee concurred with expansion or replacement of the exist- ing site. A study was conducted on expansion in which it was determined by the County Department of Public Works that the area surrounding the landfill was unsuitable. A further effort was made to examine possible replacement sites. A San Joaquin County Department of Public Works memorandum dated May 1, 1974 to Mr. William Ward (see Appendix E) discusses five sites studied by the Department of Public Works. An abstract of comments discussed in this memor- andum indicated: