ARCHIVED REPORTS_2006_7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

David J. Irey, Esq. July 18,2006 Page 3 acceptable to the LEA. Nevertheless,the LEA continued to express its dissatisfaction with Forward's inability to remove all food waste contaminants from the incoming Stockton greenwaste. As a result, on August 1, 2005,Forward advised the LEA by e-mail that greenwaste containing food waste would no longer be used as ADC at the Forward Landfill. The LEA acknowledged receipt of this e-mail in a letter to Kevin Basso of Forward, Inc. on August 18, 2005,wherein the LEA also stated its appreciation of the Landfill's decision. In conclusion, Forward, Inc. believes that the use of greenwaste containing food waste as ADC at the Forward Landfill did not violate its permit or state regulations. However, in response to the LEA's objections to this practice, the practice was discontinued by the Landfill in August of 2005. 2. Exceedance of Daily Tonnage Limits. In June of 2005, the LEA cited the Forward Landfill for exceeding its permitted daily tonnage limits. The Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the Forward Landfill, issued June 17, 2003, states that the Landfill is permitted to receive a maximum tonnage of 46,060 tons per week,not to exceed 8,668 tons per day. We understand that the LEA inspected the Landfill's tonnage reports in June 2005 and interpreted these reports as indicating that the Landfill had received more than 8,668 tons per day on several occasions. However, the only way the LEA could have reached this conclusion would have been if the LEA counted as included in the Landfill permit tonnage limit all materials received at the Landfill and used as daily cover, including ADC and clean soil. (Clean soil is not ADC,of course,because earthen material or clean soil is the prescribed material to be used as daily cover at landfills, and ADC is thus an"alternative"to clean soil. (See 27 CCR 20690(a)(1) in Tab 2.)) Since this issue arose in 2005,Forward, Inc. has consistently stated its disagreement with this interpretation of the daily and weekly tonnage limits in its permit. This is because such an interpretation of the tonnage limits in the SWFP is inconsistent with the long standing past practice in interpreting Forward's SWFPs; it is inconsistent with the interpretation of the tonnage limits in the SWFPs for other landfills in the State of California of which we are aware; and it runs contrary to the CIWMB's own published 1995 guidance document to LEAs advising them how to interpret the tonnage limits in SWFPs—a guidance document that was in effect at the time the SWFP was issued to Forward in 2003. Furthermore,the permitting history of the combined Forward and Austin Road landfills demonstrates that the tonnage limits in the SWFP applied only to disposal tonnage and not daily cover materials—and this assumption is also reflected in the calculation of the estimated closure date of 2020 contained in the SWFP. With respect to the past practice issue,prior to 2005 the LEA had never claimed to our knowledge that the tonnage of daily cover(including ADC)materials used at the Forward Landfill counted towards the tonnage limit in the Landfill's permit. Also, as I mentioned during our meeting, several of my clients are counties and joint powers authorities that own or operate landfills. My experience with LEAs in other counties,representing these public agencies as well