CORRESPONDENCE_2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

considering several sources 0ADC such as synthetic blankets, sludge,oompost for evaluation. ADC pilot projects for sludge and systhetic blankets are identified. The operator submitted to the LEA an RDSI amendment dated February 7, 2000 in order to allow processed green material and shredded tires as ADC. An updated RDSI dated May 2002 states that the operator is permitted to use contaminated soil for cover and synthetic blankets as ADC and currently uses processed green material as ADC. Other than stating that greenwaste is not stockpiled for longer than 72 hours there are no other specifications for ADC use. The assessment of the SWFP/RDSI/CEQA conditions and SMS at the facility is as follows: Currently,the site uses greenwaste as ADC and contaminated soil and clean soil as cover. The operator has not used tarps for approximately two years. The operator stated that they report all inert material as disposal therefore no beneficial use is documented for this material. The LEA however mentioned that they have observed concrete/asphalt material being used for the wet weather deck area. Information submitted for the DRS identifies C&D as an ADC material for the site. For the period of July 1,2001 to December 31,2001 there were 17,695 tons reported to have been used. The RDSI does not specifically identify C&D as an ADC type. The operator currently has not resolved this issue. If the tonnage included in this category is C&D ADC then an RDSI amendment should be submitted identifying its use. If it is inert material being beneficially used as wet weather deck material or if it is contaminated soil being used as cover material then it shouldn't be reported as ADC. Spreading and compacting seemed adequate due to the flatness of the previous days working area. It was observed however that only approximately 50%of the entire previous days working face had been covered. The remaining 50%was completely exposed. In areas where greenwaste ADC had been applied there was excessive daylighting believed to be primarily due to the thin application of the greenwaste ADC. Because of the obvious lack of cover thickness no holes were dug. The February 1999 RDSI mentioned that based on the 1993 site development plans on site excavations are expected to generate approximately 2,889,000 cubic yards of soil to be used for landfill operations but that only 2,759,000 will be required. From this information it could possibly be assumed that no cover soil shortfall exists. An additional SMS should be evaluated at this facility because of the large working area. The average daily tonnage accepted at the trash working face is only 2,880 TPD therefore this area may not need to have a working face as large as was seen on the day of the site visit. The SMS 27 CCR 20630 —Confined Unloading states that unloading of solid wastes shall be confined to as small an area as possible. It is unknown whether the working face has been typical as large as was seen on the day of the site visit. If so, available cover material identified by the 1993 site development plan may have been prematurely consumed. It is also not known whether cover application has been typically neglected as was evident on the site visit. If so,then the facility may have large quantities of soil stockpiled for cover. The operator should provide a current assessment of remaining available cover material from excavations. f Previous days ADC cover Working face area size 2