My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_1988_1
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARNEY
>
17720
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440058
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_1988_1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2020 3:52:43 PM
Creation date
7/3/2020 11:00:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
1988_1
RECORD_ID
PR0440058
PE
4433
FACILITY_ID
FA0004518
FACILITY_NAME
NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL
STREET_NUMBER
17720
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
HARNEY
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
06512004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
17720 E HARNEY LN
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\SW\SW_4433_PR0440058_17720 E HARNEY_1988_1.tif
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
341
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
regulatory requirements and are able to operate at maximum capacity. <br /> Under these conditions, the first proposal 's company could treat all <br /> waste oil and oily sludge generated in the County; the second one <br /> would be able to treat all contaminated soils generated in the County <br /> in addition to cleanup of any unforeseen spills or contaminated sites. <br /> This scenario also assumes that TSDFs in other counties comply with <br /> regulatory requirements and have the capacity to manage predictable <br /> increases in the County's waste stream. <br /> The second scenario (Scenario 2 in Table 9-1) , the no-action scenario, <br /> assumes that the County's existing facilities (1) do not meet regula- <br /> tory requirements, (2) choose not to modify to meet regulations, or <br /> (3) fail to be granted a permit. Under these conditions, the facil - <br /> ities are forced to close, and the wastes that they would have treated <br /> must be diverted to an out-of-county TSOF or managed by Transportable <br /> Treatment Units (TTUs) . As mentioned earlier, the bulk of the <br /> County's exported wastes in 1986 were sent to Kings County's Kettleman <br /> facility. Whether out-of-county TSDFs can manage waste increases <br /> (assuming they comply with regulations) depends on their capacity for <br /> expansion, increases in their own county's waste treatment needs, and <br /> increases in the treatment needs of other counties currently using the <br /> facility. If out-of-county TSDFs (in accordance with multicounty <br /> agreements, as described in Section 1 .5 of the.CHWMP) were to fail to <br /> comply with regulations and were to shut down, the County (and other <br /> counties) would need to rely on TSDFs in other states. On the west <br /> coast, hazardous waste landfills located in Utah and Colorado have <br /> already been used by several generators in California. In addition, a <br /> treatment facility in Phoenix, Arizona and Safety Kleen Corporation's <br /> Texas facility (which recovers dry cleaning perchloroethylene wastes) <br /> are currently accepting wastes from certain generators in the state. <br /> Should the no action scenario occur, hazardous wastes might be managed <br /> by Transportable Treatment Units. <br /> A complete shutdown of TSDFs within the state due to noncompliance <br /> would require serious planning between neighboring states on the west <br /> w PJ9 9390502D.00D 8-5 Rev. 1 11/08/88 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.