Loading...
02-01-2000 - BKK Class I Landfill Draft Postclosure Permit CommentsTO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: ITEM NO. D-1 DATE February 1. 2000 ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City Manager and City Council Steven L. Samamego Environmental Management Director BKK Class I Landfill Draft Postclosure Permit Comments The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has released the BKK Class I Landfill Draft Postclosure Permit for public review and comment from November 15, 1999 through February 15, 2000. City staff has drafted comments for the City Council's acceptance for submittal to DTSC. BACKGROUND: The closed Class I Hazardous Waste Landfill, has been"operating since 1989 in accordance with State postclosure regulations, but without a site -specific postclosure permit. DTSC has announced that the postclosure comment period will be for 90 days. ' The comment period started November 15, 1999 and will continue through February 15, 2000. Attached is DTSC's Fact Sheet #2, dated November. 1999, which provides a. brief summary of the postclosure permit. DTSC held a public hearing on December 15, 1999 in West Covina to receive oral comments on the draft permit. DTSC's overview presentation was very brief The majority of the, citizens that attended complained that the meeting was not publicized well enough and their presentation was not very informative. In response to the community concerns, DTSC held a special community meeting in West Covina on January.24, 2000. The community meeting provided the residents a better overview of the project and another opportunity to have their concerns addressed by DTSC. The community meeting allowed for there to be an exchange of dialogue between DTSC and the public,. which did not take place at the December public hearing. U.S. EPA and Water Quality representatives were also present to respond to any issues _ addressed regarding their regulatory oversight. DISCUSSION: Both Environmental Management Department and Planning Division reviewed and commented on the draft postclosure permit. Attached is a copy of the comments ready to be sent to DTSC Comments need to be submitted to DTSC by February 15, 2000. Our comments are more technical in nature, dealing with design and operation. The following is a summary of the topics of our comments: 1. Landscaping 5. Irrigation with leachate 9. Financial Assurances treatment plant, effluent 2. Bench roads not 6.. DTSC's inspections 10. Mitigated Negative accessible during wet Declaration weather 3. Off -site rainwater 7. Final cover design 11. Initial Study drainage on to residential streets at Nogales 4. Underground storage 8. Weed maintenance tanks PAGE 20-1 PA11% Page 1 of 17 SLS January. 26, 2000 CITY OF WEST COVINA • PERMIT APPLICATION for OPERATION OF THE LEACHATE TREATMENT PLANT and POSTCLOSURE CARE OF THE CLASS I LANDFILL at BKK LANDFILL WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA Revised June. 30,1997 SECTION .2.1.3 Why is the hazardous waste facility. boundary proposed to be reduced significantly? Does this reduction limit and reduce BKK's responsibility and liability beyond the boundaries? How does this impact liability and responsibility of BKK with EPA's Consent Order 3008(h)? How does the boundary change affect DTSC's authority within the 583 permitted facility boundary? Why isn't BKK's land use development proposals mentioned here? What are DTSC's concerns or comments on possible development along Azusa and the golf course that is adjacent to the Class I landfill unit? What are DTSC's comments on BKK's proposed parcelization and land use zoning changes of the property? .All these proposals should be included and evaluated for any environmental concerns and mitigations with respect to: any corrective action or groundwater remediation. Cover Vegetation and Irrigation System Why .isn't the existing vegetation not in compliance with the Final Closure Plan? Will DTSC increase its enforcement and inspection, program to bring the vegetation into compliance and then. maintain compliance? Many areas of the landfill lack vegetation and those areas that have vegetation is not the vegetation required and planted per the Final Closure Plan. The vegetation is mostly weeds. If weeds are acceptable to DTSC as vegetation then what was DTSC's intention in the Closure Plan Landscape requirements. Weeds will` grow naturally. Natural weed vegetation is not acceptable and was not the intent of the Closure Plan. Vegetation needs. to be thoroughly addressed as to why it is not in compliance 'and how it can be corrected and maintained to full maturity. Has DTSC been inspecting, monitoring and enforcing ` the PAGE SECTION landscape 'vegetation and maintenance program? Isn't the irrigation system failing to provide adequate coverage for a uniform moisture content in the cap? Did BKK obtain DTSC's approval when they augmented the = plant species from the Final Closure Plan requirement? The 'Final Closure Plan addressed environmental impact concerns on the vegetative cover selected with respect to the irrigation water quality and the clay cap soil design .. Have these impacts been evaluated for proper selection . of a vegetative cover that will grow to maturity which would provide added protection to the cover? 2.0 m3 Liquid Management What authority did DTSC have to permit BKK to dispose of their treated leachate effluent on site as irrigation and dust control when both U.S. EPA's and DTSC's permit required a delisting from U.S. EPA prior to operation of the Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) which was never obtained? What has been the affect of this? Hasn't this had a detrimental impact on the soil cap and vegetation? Will DTSC test the soils for salinity and:erosion build up? If this water is for irrigation and dust control will DTSC : stipulate a condition that BKK shall not discharge any LTP effluent during wet `weather? BKK has been known to discharge during the rain which means they are disposing of . the water. The Final Closure Plan stated that a leachate collection system would be installed at the base of each landfill to separately collect drainage to prevent migration between the - two landfills. Has this been installed,and has leachate been kept from migrating from the Class I to the Class III? Is there a monitoring program in place to detect any migration between the Class I and III units? What enforcement program does DTSC have and propose if migration is detected? This section should include the requirements from the Stipulated Permanent Injunction and the U.S. EPA 3008(h) Consent Order. Will DTSC see that they are included? Page 2 of 17 SLS January 26,2000 . PAGE 2.0-3 2.0-4 2.2-6 2.3-3 SECTION 2.2.5.1 2.3.6 2.4-1 2.4.1 Page 3 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 Perimeter Gas Control Svstem The Final Closure Plan ensured the public that a perimeter gas monitoring system would be installed between the Class I and Class III Landfills to ensure that no cross migration would occur. . Has this been accomplished? Is gas migrating between the two landfills? Will DTSC attach. and disclose the SPI conditions and requirements here? Rainfall Run-on and Run-off Controls The permitted discharging of on -site and off -site drainage from the landfill onto the public streets of Nogales and Myra Court should be reconsidered. It is just not good landfill management practice to permit such discharges onto public streets into a residential community. Will DTSC reconsider an alternate discharge design? Access All internal roads should be evaluated by the local fire authority for construction design accessibility for their emergency vehicles during rainy season., Benches should be constructed with an all-weather surface material, not the same material as the final cover which is clay. Clay is not accessible for vehicles when wet. The all-weather surface material would also serve as a protective surface layer to the clay cover: Will DTSC assure that bench roads will be constructed to be accessible by vehicles and emergency vehicles during rainy weather? Properly constructed bench roads with a protective all-weather layer over the clay cap would reduce additional clay cap cover repairs during rainy season. Underaround Tanks Are all . underground tanks listed in Attachment XII/XIII of the Hazardous Waste Permit Application Part A in conformance with the underground tank design requirements for leak detection? When will those. that are not be brought into compliance? Prevention of Hazards During Unloading and Transport PAGE 2.4-2 2.4-3 2.4-6 2.5-1 Page 4 of 17 SLS January 2.6, 2000 SECTION The protocol for storage, handling and disposal of hazardous waste generated associated with postclosure care of the Class I should be in this plan. Identified storage areas should also . be listed. Will DTSC include this information in this plan? 2.4.3 Prevention of Water Contamination Since the U.S. EPA 3008(h) Consent Order is for the Class I, this plan should have the detailed history and most current update status with the order. The order should be attached. What is DTSC's role with the 3008(h) Consent Order? Where are the overlapping roles of authority with air quality, water quality, and DISC. How are these - roles coordinated with EPA to assure no conflict or duplication? Schedule of the order should be included for monitoring. Will DTSC include the above information in this plan? 2.4.3.1 Public Water Supply Will there be established parameters in place for the quality of reclaimed water to be used for landscape irrigation? Will the reclaimed water have any long-term impacts on vegetation growth due to high -salinity content, Boron or other elements which have not been fully removed? 2.4:6 Prevention of Releases to the Atmosphere It is mentioned here that the landfill cover is installed with vegetation to prevent releases. This is misleading.. There is no vegetation in accordance with the required Final Closure Plan. Most of the vegetation is weeds and the site has had continued Proposition 65 vinyl chloride releases. Additional, to add to the problem, the irrigation system does not provide adequate coverage of water to maintain vegetation and soil cap moisture. What will be done by DTSC to improve the vegetation? 2.5 Chemical and Physical Analysis of Hazardous Waste It should be noted also that the LTP receives leachate and condensate from the closed Class III Landfill. Does the Waste Analysis Plan include the Class III liquids? PAGE 2.5-2 2.5-3 2.5-5 2.6-2 2.8-1 Page 5 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 SECTION 2.5.3 Ouantities Can BKK be more specific as to the quantities of leachate and gas condensate. generated from the Class I and Class III Landfill units separately? A system should be in place for BKK and the agencies to separately monitor leachate and gas condensate quantities from the Class I and Class III. Why are the quantities listed as estimates rather than precise quantities? Precise quantity data should be listed and if approximate or estimates must be listed, a numerical factor of error should be provided with the estimate. How can DTSC enforce a leachate treatment plant daily permit capacity if we have estimates? I 2.5.6 Process Design Capacity l What is the highest daily capacity of liquids that the UP,, has reached? Has the LTP ever exceeded its permitted daily capacity? Is BKK planning to expand the LTP for 100'000 gallons per day?. Will the increased number of leachate extraction wells proposed for remediation require ! an expansion of the UP for 100,000 gallons per day. This information should be included in the plan with schedule of expansion. The decision should be made now during 1this application to avoid any other delays. 2.5.7.1 Leachate Source Areas jE Should the Class .III Landfill be considered a new leachate source area? 2.5.8 Waste Analysis Plan Should the Class III Landfill be included in the Waste Analysis Plan? 2.6 Preparedness and Prevention Are all access points around the property accessible to Fire Department during wet weather conditions? 2.8 Environmental Control Permits All environmental permits should be attached as reference Ifor II F PAGE 3.2-1 3.3.1-3 3.3.1-3 3.3.1-3 Page 6 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 SECTION review and assurance that all environmental controls are monitored and overseen. 3.2.1.1 Security What site security arrangements have been made with the new housing development at the northwest property line? A new fence has been erected and some landscaping with a. sprinkler system has been installed on BKK property. Do homeowners have access onto BKK property? 3.3.1.2.1 Grid Inspection Why won't future revisions to the 1150A Plan be incorporated into this.document? The 1150.1 Plan should be updated annually if changes have been made. Will DTSC incorporate and update the 115 0. 1 Plan as needed? 3.3.1.2. Storm Drainage Inspection It is noted that during a rain storm, inspections of the landfill will be made from the all-weather roads and convective measures taken as necessary. This implies that BKK will not access the site from the bench roads to do their inspection. Why aren't the bench roads also all weather for inspection access? Can every slope and bench of the site be seen from the all-weather roads? What areas of the landfill cannot be inspected or seen from the all-weather roads? Leachate seeps, odors or gas line separations cannot be seen from such a distance. How are top decks inspected during a storm? Are bench roads designed for heavy equipment to access without damaging the clay cap? In the event of an emergency, can emergency vehicles, i.e., fire trucks and/or ambulances access bench roads during wet weather? Will DTSC require benches to have an all-weather protective surface to allow vehicle access during a storm. During a storm is the most critical time that access should be provided. 3.3.1.2.3 Tensiometer Monitoring How much of an area of soil does a tensiometer monitor? How will only seven tensiometers adequately monitor 190 acres? Please explain how tensiometer were designed to monitor the entire 190 acres. Does the entire landfill receive PAGE 3.3.1-5 3.3.1-6 3.3.1-7 Page 7 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 SECTION the same amount of irrigation as the areas where'! the tensiometers are? The moisture monitoring zone program of the outer 12 to 18 inches needs to be re-evaluated and revised. It is obvious!'; that due to the soil dryness and lack of vegetation, the existing moisture monitoring system does not work. Moisture should be monitored and maintained to support both. the vegetation and the clay 'cap. . Will DTSC re-evaluate and revise' the moisture monitoring zone program? 3.3.1.3.4 Soil Erosion If vegetation is designed to minimize final cover erosion, 'why isn't more effort placed in maintaining vegetation? The vegetative layer is, a vital protective layer to the cover and should therefore be seriously monitored and enforced as an environmental control factor during postclosure, especially since there is no protective vegetative cover soil. 3.3.1.3.5 Local Surface Slumpin Will the repairs mentioned meet -the final cover " soil impermability standards and compaction?. 3.3.1.3.6 Shrinkage Cracks u This section states that tensiometer monitoring for moisture in conjunction with visual and other factors to determine whether irrigation is sufficient but refers the reader to Exhibit 3.3.1-3 for contingency. The visual and other factors used to determine whether irrigation is sufficient is very important due to the lack of vegetation. Will DTSC further explain what these visuals and other factors are and how they are'i, used to determine the need for irrigation? 3.3.1.3.8 Anticipated Subsidence and Final Grades Why are the subsidence records listed 10 years old? i!!They only give remaining settlement up to the year 1988. What is the current anticipated subsidence for the remaining postclosure period? 3.3.1.3.9 Vegetation and Irrigation PAGE SECTION Will the revegetation be planted with the required vegetative seed mix? Will DTSC monitor the revegetation? Has BKK submitted their proposed revegetation and irrigation upgrade plan to be considered as part of this plan? Prior to any final cover repair work, will an assessment be made on salvaging as much of the vegetative cover as possible with the extent of work needed? . 3.3.1.3-10 Compacted Fill Construction If any other soils or soil types are to be used from those. already approved, will they also be reviewed and approved by DTSC or RWQCB prior to use? 3.3.1-12 Protection of Facilities Will DTSC also include established landscape vegetation to be protected? 3.3.2-1 3.3.2.1 Vegetation What plants does the existing vegetative pallate have? Is the pallate consistent with the final closure plan seed pallate? What vegetation growing on site is not consistent with the closure plan? Was the hydroseeded landscape Closure Plan requirement enforced and maintained? Why did DTSC require hydroseeding of certain plants? When certification was granted by DTSC, did DTSC assure that the hydroseeded landscape was successful? It has been about 10 years since final closure certification. What percent of the final closure plan vegetation has reached maturity? If the .vegetative cover must be able to adapt to the general constraints imposed by the final cover, the vegetation will never grow. Will DTSC revise this section to state that BKK will supplement required resources of the vegetation such as water and nutrients to help it adapt. to the constraints with the objective to have vegetation reach maturity and be maintained? Has BKK discussed the proposal to enhance and upgrade their vegetation on the Class I site? What steps is DTSC taking to address the ongoing monitoring and correction of the . irrigation water quality and soil problems that have restricted the success of the vegetation? It is very clear under soil conditions that the soils are high in Page 8 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE SECTION 3.3.2-1 3.3.2-2 3.3.2-7 3.3.2-10 Page 9 of 11 SLS January 26, 2000 salts, leaching is not allowed and the soil is highly compacted. What will DTSC do to mitigate these conditions for the landscaping required under the Final Closure Plan? It is also evident that continued use of LTP effluent for irrigation will make these soil conditions worse by retaining all the harmful elements mentioned. 'This needs to be mitigated. Monitoring will not mitigate. What will DTSC do to mitigate this? West Covina wants the landscape that was required in the Closure Plan and wants DTSC to be responsible to enforce that plan. Soil Conditions Knowing what the soil conditions are, what is DTSC or BKK going to do to modify the conditions for the vegetation to adapt and grow to maturity? What is proposed to reducethe high salt content? What is proposed to provide leaching of soils from the harmful elements. i� What is proposed to reduce the high soil compaction? Has an alternative final cover design been evaluated? Were these issues considered and evaluated for mitigations by DTSC, RWQCB, and U.S. EPA prior to approving a variance from the required final cover design which would have been consistent with, the regulations providing a protective vegetative layer and a. drainage layer? . Will DTSC evaluate these issues for impacts of the design of the final cover on the vegetation? i1 Established Areas Would there be an actual site condition on the landfill area that could be a potential for a fire as stated in this section?' If so, what can be done to prevent such a potential? Can't DTSC require a vegetation maintenance program that would be maintained to a standard that would prevent plants from drying due to lack of irrigation or seed type selection? �V Is there a program to remove weeds or those plants that are detrimental to the selected pallate? If not, will DTSC require such a program throughout postclosure? Weed Control Program i { F PAGE SECTION Will DTSC require weeds of any kind to be removed regularly so as to maintain the approved Final Closure Plan vegetative cover and allow it to grow to maturity? Will all environmental control systems, i.e., gas recovery lines, drainage systems, wells, gas probes, irrigation systems, cover, etc: be kept reasonably clear of vegetation and weeds for fire clearance prevention monitoring, inspection programs and accessibility for repairs? ' Why is mowing of slopes needed? Is the mowing for weeds or the actual vegetation approved in the Final Closure Plan? How tall. do the weeds get before they are mowed? How often are the weeds in a . specific grid mowed per season? Weeds grow taller than six feet on the slopes before they are cut. The .tall weeds are allowed to dry and become a fire. hazard. DTSC should require a more stringent weed maintenance program to avoid any fire hazards that exist there every year. Has DTSC noted ever seeing these weeds on their inspection? How does DTSC inspect cover integrity on slopes with very thick six-foot weeds? This needs to stop and be mitigated. 3.3.2-10 Hydroseeding Will DTSC assure that the proposed horse manure to be used is of a certified quality that will not introduce weeds? 3.3.3-2 Leachate Collection Sumps Do these sumps meet the underground storage tank design specifications for leak detection? 3.3.3-5 Contaminated Groundwater Why isn't all the information on the extent of groundwater contamination and work under. U.S. EPA Consent Order provided here? Will DTSC require the objectives and goals on groundwater remediation also be provided. How much contaminated groundwater is pumped daily? How much contaminated groundwater is expected or estimated to be pumped with'the remediation? Page 10 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE SECTION 3.3.3-2 Monitorinr? What are the other means of quantitative monitoring than with totalizing- meters? Please list those means here for review. Do all leachate extraction wells and contaminated groundwater wells have meters? How are these liquids monitored with respect to daily generation? 3.3.3-6 Daily Inspection Why don't the underground tanks have leak detection systems? Does BKK intend to bring their underground storage tanks in compliance with state standards? If so, when? Will DTSC require all underground tanks be brought into compliance with state standards? 3.3.4-4 Gas Piping System Do the gas condensate collection headers have any visible gauge to determine capacity? Are these collection headers aboveground? Are there any underground? How does BKK or DTSC know that the underground header pipes are not leaking? Can BKK mark or identify the locations of the underground header pipes for monitoring of surrounding soils? 3.3.5-2 3,.3.5.2 - Monitoring Why doesn't this section mention and attach the Superior Court Stipulated Permanent Injunction (SPI) dated October 21, 1988? This injunction has a very detailed court mandated step-by-step requirement on "Procedures for Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance of an Effective Gas Migration Control System." Will DTSC incorporate the SPI here? The procedures noted in this plan do not parallel the SPI which is why this injunction should be attached to this plan and incorporated as a condition of the permit. 3.3.7-3 Why does the south haul road collector not have the required final cover design depth of 5 feet of cover? Does the 2 feet of fmal cover meet the required permeability rates? Has this area had any gas emissions? Page 11 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE 3.3.7-4 3.3.9-1 3.3.9-6 iMMA 3.3.9-8 Page 12 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 SECTION Debris Basin No. 2 Why is the debris basin no. 2 allowed to discharge waters from the . Class I landfill slopes onto a public street? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for this discharge to be diverted off the public streets where residences reside especially during postclosure? What could DTSC do to change this design? The use of sandbags to divert run off onto residential streets off Nogales is a temporary design. Postclosure is for 30 years or more; therefore, a ,temporary design such as this is unacceptable. A more permanent design is needed. What will DTSC do to mitigate this? 3.3.9.1 System Description Is use of the treated LTP effluent permitted for irrigation and dust control? On what basis is the effluent categorized as "high quality"? Treated effluent without dilution is not acceptable for use unless diluted with potable water on a 10:1 ratio. What additions or modifications to the system would assure that the treated effluent will not adversely effect the vegetation and soil quality over time? Will DTSC evaluate the soil for build up of salts and boron from the UP effluent? UP effluent is being disposed on - site during wet weather. DTSC should condition the use so as to prohibit discharge during wet weather when irrigation or dust control is not needed. Sludge Treatment Systems Are the two sludge storagetanks pressure release vents releasing pressure directly into the air? Are they monitored by Air Quality? How are emissions controlled? Filter Press How. many filter cake roll -off bins will be allowed for storage and where will they be stored? Do the 6-inch inlet lines from the clarifier to the 51,000 gallon holding tanks have meter for monitoring daily flows? PAGE SECTION 3.3.9-9 Air Stripping System Is the air .stripping system another treatment system . for leachate contaminated groundwater in addition. to the LTP? Will the same treatment perameters and' monitoring requirements posed on the LTP be required on the stripper? What will the treatment level standards be? Since the stripper will be treating leachate contaminated groundwater for reuse, will it have to obtain a delisting from. U.S. EPA? Have all environmental impacts been addressed? 3.3.9-11 For further, explanation on the tertiary containment drainage basin, the plan refers to Section 3.3.7.1. Upon reviewing Section 3.3.7.1, it does not provide further explanation on tertiary containment as referenced. What is meant by tertiary containment? Will LTP effluent be discharged into this drainage basin for discharge into the flood channel? Is this water planned for reuse on site? Please provide more detailed information. Will the redesign of these basins be reviewed by L.A. County Flood Control for discharge into the flood control channel? 3.3.9.1,1 General Hazard Prevention Please explain what is meant by if LTP effluent quality will not meet the requirement, the waste will be recycled within the system. 3.3.9-13 3.3.9.2 Monitoring Will the LTP and air stripper effluents be evaluated and monitored so as not to have a detrimental impact on the landfill vegetation? Will a delisting be required from U.S. EPA for the use of effluent from the air stripper? 3.4.1-1 3.4.1.1 Required Programs Will DTSC require the RCRA 3008(h) Consent Order and the SPI to be attached to this plan and conditioned under the permit? The elements and condition of the order and SPI with schedules should be attached for disclosure and conditioned under this plan and permit. 3.4.1-2 3.4.1.5 Monitoriniz Points and Points of Compliance Page 13 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE SECTION Why hasn't DTSC . established points of compliance at the. site? These points of compliance should have. been established years ago. When will these points be established? 3.4.1.6 Please explain the compliance period more thoroughly. How can a compliance period be for 17 years? What is expected to be accomplished with' the monitoring compliance. period? How is compliance determined? 3.5-1 3.5" Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring Schedules Where in the inspection plan and schedule is the UP daily capacity monitored? Where also is the daily generation of UP influents monitoring, i.e., condensate and extraction wells?, Will DTSC see that UP daily capacity and generation are included in these forms? 3.5-2 Table 3.5-1 Vegetation inspection schedule should be increased to daily. Why is it quarterly? Irrigation inspection should also be daily. Will DTSC increase these inspections to daily? If not, please explain and justify. 3.5-11 Table 3.5-3 Tensiometer Landfill Cover Soil Moisture Content Monitoring on a monthly frequency is inadequate. Why monthly? This should be monitored daily or weekly. Will DTSC increase their inspection? 3.6-1 3.6 Independent Engineer's Approval Inspection and Report Could the City of West Covina be placed on the mailing list to receive a copy of the annual report? • Will this report ' also include recommendation of any improvements needed? • What will. happen with this report? What will DTSC do with this report? Will DTSC use this report during their annual inspection for follow-up? • Shouldn't Air Quality and CIWMB receive a copy of this report? Page 14 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE SECTION 3.6-2 3.6.2 Certification of Completion What is DTSC's definition of postclosure care certification of completion? What happens after postclosure care completion? What key elements of the postclosure care period and operations will DTSC use to certify completion? Is it reasonable to say that postclosure care will be completed with the given 30 year period from commencement? Under what conditions would DTSC not certify completion? Please list examples. If postclosure care was to. be extended beyond 30 years, will there be sufficient funds for continued extended care after the year 2019. Shouldn't this plan have provisions for possible extended care? 3.7-2 3.7.1.1 Introduction Why aren't the postclosure cost estimates for the LTP and the Class I Landfill included? Will DTSC-incorporate these cost estimates with this plan? Is there adequate funding for both throughout postclosure? 3.7.1.2 Closure Plan Will the demolished LTP concrete slabs proposed for use as drainage rip rap ' be required to have a specific design and meet city ordinances? Plate No. 2 1993 Tono and Site Facilitv Plan Is the proposed methanol plant listed here by error or is it proposed again? This site plan is 4 years old, should a more current plan be produced? Place in the operation plan the proposed new storage building that is currently undergoing entitlement processing with the City. Plate No. 2E Plate 2E Class I Facility Boundary What has. happened to the administrative building?. They have been removed and nothing mentioned. Will the Class I fence boundary be relocated. Page 15 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 s PAGE SECTION The million -gallon reservoir is part of the Class I operation. Will it be within the boundary? Will the points. of compliance be impacted by the boundary change? Will the facility boundary be defined? Plate No. 6 Surface Emissions Inspection Grids Are all grid stakes I.D. markers in place with legible labels? Will DTSC make this a condition of their permit? Exhibit 3.3.3-2 Vacuum Truck Los Will DTSC require the vacuum truck to have a flow meter and log on inspection form gallons pumped from Class III and I for tracking of daily capacity of liquids generated? Exhibit 3.3.4-1 SCAQMD PERMIT Class I Gas Collection System Will DTSC require the permit to be attached for review and be updated or replaced when revised? Exhibit 3.3.4-3 Gas Collection Inspection Forms Shouldn't the Earthquake Inspection Form have a section for any damages or pipe separation of the gas collection system? Exhibit 3.3.6-1 Operating Permit Flare Station No. 1 Will DTSC require this permit to be attached and updated as required? Exhibit 3.3.6-2 Operating Permit Flare Station No. 2 Will DTSC require this permit to be attached and updated as required? Exhibit 3.3.7-1 Drainage Control Inspection Forms Will DTSC require an inspection form to also be used during a rain storm not just before and after a storm? Rains can carry M on for days or weeks. Inspections should be conducted during a storm to catch or repair a. problem before it gets - worse. Page 16 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 PAGE SECTION Exhibit 3.3.9-2 SCAQMD Permit to Operate LTP Will DTSC require this permit to be attached and updated as needed? Exhibit 3.3.9-3 LA RWQCB WDR's UP Will DTSC require the LTP WDR's to be attached and updated as required. Page 17 of 17 SLS January 26, 2000 0 CITY OF WEST COVINA BKK CLASS I LANDFILL NOVEMBER 15,1999 DRAFT POSTCLOSURE PERMIT COMMENTS Paae Comment 5. B2. LTP also supports Class III Landfill unit. 7 LTP maximum . capacity of 100,000 gallons per day with a future expansion of 100,000 gallons per day is not clear. Does this mean that the LTP has reached it's maximum capacity. 12 Where are the specified locations for the dewatered sludge roll off bins? These locations need to be specified in the plan. Why are bins being staged while awaiting transport. Transport arrangements should be made at the time they become full and exchanged. BKK is monitoring the bins during operation while they are being filled, aren't they? No reason then to arrange transport as they get full. The LTP sludge is hazardous waste and should be handled as little as possible. Why is DTSC permitting the transfer of sludge from BKK roll -off bins to another bin? This appears to be excessive handling allowing potential opportunity for an incident. Are BKK bins DOT approved? Bins receiving the sludge cakes off the press should be DOT approved and transported in same container without having to transfer content into another container. The City's Waste Management Enforcement Agency observed the transferring to other bins and what they do is dump the hazardous waste sludge on, the ground . and then scoop it up into another roll -off bin. There is no need for this additional handling to take place. If this additional handling is essential, it should take place in a facility specially designed for the transfer. 16. d. North access road Sump 2 — Does this sump meet the underground tank requirements? Does it have an underground permit? Are there leak detection devices and is there secondary containment for a leak? How deep is it buried and is there access to the tank for repair or, removal? Does the access meet design standards? Who approved the access design? 16. e.' Same comment as 16.d., above. 17. f. What is cross-link polyethylene? Why is this tank made up of different material than other tanks? Is cross-link polyethylene the recommended material for tank construction for this use? 17. g. Flare station knockout Tank V-1, V-2 and V-3 is mentioned to be above ground Page 1 of 10 January 28, 2000 .. • but in a vault. Are the vaults above ground? 23.(4) It mentions that contamination has probably migrated beyond the north haul road. It is imperative that DTSC and BKK make the determination whether the contamination has or hasn't migrated beneath the inactive Class III itself. What needs to be done to confirm this? What has DTSC been doing to meet the stipulated permanent injunction (SPI) standards for monitoring the contamination between the Class III and Class I? It DTSC and BKK in compliance with the SPI? Isn't there an established point of compliance between the inactive Class III and closed Class I required by the SPI? DTSC should incorporate the SPI points of compliance. 33: c. What actions will DTSC be taking upon notification by BKK of unexpected constituents found in background wells? Will DTSC do any sampling of their own to verify BKK'ssampling? If not, why? 34.4.. 'This section needs clarification. Does this mean that DTSC does not know the effectiveness of the points of compliance monitoring wells in place? Provide a drawing designating which wells are points of compliance wells. What is the existing past monitoring, status results of all points of compliance wells? . Has any contamination been detected at any of these wells?. If so, what corrective action has DTSC taken? Are the points of compliancein in compliance with the Stipulated Permanent Injunction? 42. h. References SPI, Part V,;B. 7 (No such section.found in SPI) Could you reference a page number? 44.(5) Shouldn't corrective action meet SPI standards in addition toTitle 22? 46. (a) Does DTSC do a physical inspection of the wells and piezometers other than just look at BKK's -records? Will all wells be physically inspected by DTSC annually? In what time period will all wells be inspected. Does DTSC have a well and piezometer inspection program? .Please describe it. 46. (k) Why doesn't DTSC. require all reporting, submittals and record -keeping to have an introductory summary that indicates compliance or non-compliance. Also, all submittals and records of monitoring analysis data tables should also, have a table with the permitted levels for immediate comparison for compliance or non- compliance. 49.(7) Who determines what is a significant release, as opposed to just any release? Why not just require such notification of any release and implement corrective action.measures to avoid argument on what a significant release is. Why is there a requirement for permit modifications when releases are found that require additional monitoring and corrective actions to resolve the problem? This process is too much of a bureaucratic process requiring plan submittals and reviews. By Page 2 of 10 January 28, 2000 the, time a corrective action' measure is approved, the release, could get worse and require more time and cost to correct because of the time delay. This process should be planned ahead and expected with requirement and procedures in place for different scenarios of releases. Hasn't this process been studied enough? What has DTSC been doing with this site the past 12 years of postclosure activity? DTSC should have more than 12 years experience and data on hand to include various corrective measures that BKK would have to apply. It 'is important that the citizens of West covina have a very clear understanding what DTSC actually does on their inspections of the landfill other than just review BKK's records, which DTSC should have already per BKK submittals to DTSC. Disclose to the community a detailed summary overview of how DTSC's annual inspections are conducted, including total time, hours and days and types of monitoring equipment and instruments for validation of BKK's monitoring. Also' please include a copy of the blank inspection forms used, including a copy of DTSC's last 3 years inspection reports. 51. b. (2) Does DTSC and CIWMB have a' Memorandum of Understanding that the CI WMB will - be responsible to conduct the pore -gas monitoring requirements delegated to DTSC per Title 22? DTSC is. still a responsible agency per Title 22, on pore -gas monitoring irrespective of other requirements or court orders. . 54. A. e. 54.2. a: Page 3 of 10 January 28, 2000 The SPI monitoring should be in addition to Title 22 requirements. .What type of pore gas monitoring does DTSC currently do during their inspections? What happened. to the 39 off -site gas monitoring probes in the residential areas of Lynn Court and Miranda Streets? Why aren't those being monitored? How is migration in those areas being monitored, especially where the contaminated groundwater exists underneath the residential homes? Monitoring protocols and instrument used by agencies and BKK should be. established in this permit or operation plan. Both BKK and the Agency should be consistent in the way they monitor and the instruments they use. If both are following the same instructions, and using the same equipment there should be no discrepancies in the results and on the procedures used. Should also include requirements of City of West Covina's Waste Management Enforcement Agency's requirements for landscape irrigation water quality of Class III and Class I. Will DTSC send a copy of all operation plan and permit revisions to the City of West Covina for review and comment prior to approval: Will the public be able to review the operation plan? During rainy season BKK usually experiences an excess amount of leachate generatedcreating additional leachate storage capacity problems prior to treatment as well as excess amounts of treated leachate causing storage capacity problems. The City of West Covina's Waste Management Enforcement Agency has observed numerous back-up storage tanks brought in to store excess leachate generated because the LTP capacity could not treat the, leachate any quicker than it was being produced. What is DTSC going to do to prevent this from happening again? There should. be permanent additional reserve storage tanks on site next to the LTP. BKK has been observed both irrigating the Class I vegetation and use of treated leachate for dust control during the rains when the soil is already saturated from the rainwater. This practice is absolutely unnecessary and is in reality, a disposal practice rather than a beneficiary use. What is DTSC going to do about this? It is obvious there is already a need for additional storage capacity'prior to treatment and after treatment. Even though Water Quality approves the beneficial use DTSC is responsible for that use and should condition the permit so as to prohibit the use, of LTP effluent when there is no need, for irrigation or dust control, _ especially during wet weather. Are there any monitoring logs on the storage capacity levels of the million -gallon treated leachate reservoir? Does DTSC monitor the million gallon reservoir levels? If so, how often? What have highest levels been for the past 5 years? Is there a maximum storage level requirement?. Is the million -gallon treated leachate reservoir adequate capacity? 57. h. Has DTSC ever conducted an internal inspection of the LTP tanks? 57. 1 (a) Will DTSC include, coordination with all responsible agencies including the City of West Covina prior to approving completion of postclosure care? U.S. EPA has mentioned that postclosure care on groundwater remediation will be in perpetuity. With this in mind does DTSC plan to differentiate postclosure care operations that should continue or not? If so, this should be disclosed here.: Knowing that U.S. EPA is requiring postclosure care in perpetuity, what is DTSC doing about the financial assurances to provide for this care? This should be addressed. It is mentioned that the integrity of the cap must be such as to preventdownward entry of water into the closed landfill throughout a period of 100 years [Title 22, Section.66264.310 (a).(1)]. Are the financial assurances posted for this? DTSC is aware that the City. and. BKK have a court settlement agreement requiring the "development of an. enhanced landscape plan for the Class I. The agreed -upon enhanced landscape plan is, of course, to be approved by DTSC for. implementation. Can DTSC provide a section in the permit to allow DTSC to review and approve without having to revise or modify the permit? 58.0) Why would DTSC want to wait a year to hear from BKK to report a major break Page 4 of 10 January' 28, 2000 in the landfill cover or gas ,headers? Is there a requirement for BKK to report about such breaks immediately to DTSC for follow=up by the Agency? 58. (k) The permit should include an annual survey and grading requirement in preparation for the rainy season. With this type of annual preventive maintenance there should be little or no ponding during the rains, especially with an excess of twelve inches. Also, areas in need of repair such as this should be accessible under wet conditions for repair without damaging the cap.. Are the bench roads constructed of an all-weather material to access pond areas for repair during wet weather? This Section K is unacceptable, as is because it simply allows the ponded water no matter how bad to drain into the trash simply because it is too wet to repair. Repairs such as this should be mandatory with accessible bench roads. DTSC's number one priority should be to prevent any additional liquids from entering the landfill to fizrther exacerbate the existing ' contaminated groundwater problem we are trying to control. 59. (o) Please clarify. The bench roads currently onsite are constructed only of the clay cap which becomes damaged by vehicles or equipment traffic during rains and is not accessible. BKK closes bench roads with signs to prevent any vehicle access because they are too wet. Heavy equipment may access but will damage the clay cap and grading, thus requiring repair when it dries. Any vehicle accessing wet bench roads damage the cap and`grading thus needing repair which can only be done when dry. The site should be accessible by all vehicles and foot during the heavy rains for inspections. BKK does not do inspections using heavy equipment. -Heavy equipment is used for repairs, not inspections. This condition is very vague; besides, DTSC knows what equipment BKK has. Has DTSC ever been to the site during a heavy rain and try to access the bench roads? Also, emergency vehicles, fire and ambulance should be able to access the site for an emergency. Will DTSC assure that the material used will be adequate for normal 4-wheel vehicles and emergency vehicles? Clay surface bench roads does not work well when wet. The type of all-weather surface material needs to be listed here, including type of vehicles needing to access. There also should be a time frame for this. bench area road surfacing to be completed.. A design plan should be submitted by BKK for review and approvalwithin a specified time frame. Plans should be approved as soon as possible for construction implementation prior to next year's rainy season. 59. 2. a. (2) Are. all' underground tanks/sumps which contain hazardous waste in compliance with Title 22 CCR, Chapter 14, Article 10? 60.(4) BKK has had such lines buried for years, why is DTSC waiting until now to require compliance? When and how did DTSC become aware of the underground Piping? Page 5 of 10 January 28; 2000 61. c. (1),' Will DTSC send the City of West Covina a copy of the new amended postclosure operation plan once all revisions have been submitted, by BKK and approved by DTSC? Would DTSC copy the City on all correspondence related to revisions to. the operation plan? Will all these revisions be incorporated into the existing operation plan document to avoid having many loose revised pages that could easily get lost or misplaced if not bound into the same document? There should be a separate summarized checklist of all the required operation plan revisions and time frames. This would be a good way- of monitoring them all since there are so. many. Why is DTSC issuing a permit that has an incomplete unapproved postclosure closure operation plan? Isn't the process backwards like the cart before the horse? What guarantees does DTSC have that BKK will revise the operation plan? Without an operation plan to review, how can the public be expected to comment? 63. f. (1.) How can a negative declaration be provided when DTSC is asking for a lot of information not available to help in the decision of a negative declaration? The Negative Declaration should be based on how effective and complete the operation plan is. 66.' c. 3. Why does the Nogales debris basin empty onto residential city streets? This does not appear to be good waste management practices. What other alternatives are there?. Are there any regulations that discourage or prohibit such design? . The basin should not empty onto -residential. streets; it should be designed underground or discharge into. -the basins at the entrance. 66. c. 4.: How -is requiring BKK to submit monitoring protocols to assure that the protective vegetation minimizes desiccation, cracking and erosion of. the final cover, a ' mitigation? First of all, a vegetative soil layer with adequate moisture is what really protects the clay cap from -desiccation and cracking which is what the landfill does not have. DTSC should know by now if the existing final cover is working or not. BKK has been monitoring this for years now. Changes are needed not more monitoring. 66. d. 1. All monitoring and reporting reports should include compliance or non- compliance statements and a table of the approved limitations as per the permit.. 80... e. Why doesn't DTSC coordinate all these requirements for convective measure implementation with EPA and BKK to avoid any duplication effort of work? Appendix I SPI — SPI is incomplete. All attachments and exhibits are not attached. DTSC should include a complete SPI. The final closure plan identifies 39 off -site gas probes in the residential yards in the. Lynn Court and. Miranda areas. This needs to be evaluated and addressed for potential.impacts. Page 6 of 10 January 28, 2000 85. k. 1. When does the permit expire? Initial Study 'This is not an adequate or proper mitigation. Most landfill caps are designed with Page 8, a protective vegetative cover soil above the clay cap to minimize desiccation, Table 1 cracking and erosion. Monitoring is. not a mitigation that would mitigate or Mitigation prevent this. DTSC and BKK have been monitoring this for over 10 years and the #2, 4. same problems continue. An adequate mitigation should require a change in design or actualoperation that would actually prevent damage to the final cover. Monitoring is after the fact and is not acceptable as a mitigation. Since the clay cap is a monolithic variance design, what is the depth criteria that roots are not allowed to penetrate? Will DTSC list all the plant species on the Class I approved to meet this requirement? What are the root depths on each plant on the Class I? Which plants is DTSC requiring BKK to remove because of root depth? How does DTSC monitor the, rooting depths? Obviously existing vegetation is planted directly on the cap since there is no protective vegetative soil layer as approved by DTSC. Therefore, the , existing approved vegetation is already penetrating the cap. The permit already confirmed that areas of the cap have no vegetation and is cracked. What corrective action is required of BKK to correct those areas and what will be done differently to avoid the problem again? Please cite the specific regulatory section in which vegetation protects the cap from excessive drying and cracking as stated here. I thought that a topsoil layer along with irrigation or moisture protected the cap from desiccation and cracking. 'Also, Title 22, Section 66264.228 (e) (12) mentions the requirement of a topsoil layer over the clay cap of thickness sufficient` to support vegetation for erosion control, deep enough to prevent root penetration into the cap. It also mentions that the topsoil layer should have characteristics to protect the clay . cap layer from drying and cracking, contrary to what the permit says. . Therefore, per the regulation, it is the topsoil layer that should provide the clay cap protection. Unfortunately, DTSC did not require a topsoil layer to provide this cap protection. Please describe what is actually protecting the, cap from drying and cracking in place of, or comparable to, the required topsoil. Also, what soil layer, other than the clay cap, is supporting the vegetation growth hydroseeded per the Closure Plan that would resist erosion? BKK conducted soil and vegetation growth problem tests for DTSC. What was the result of these tests and what changes, if any, did DTSC require? Also, Title 22, Section 66264.228 (e) (6) . requires that the clay cap contain a herbicide sufficient to prevent growth of vegetation. It is my interpretation that the herbicide requirement is additional protection to the clay cap should roots reach down that deep. Does the clay cap have the herbicide as required under Title 22? If not, why and what was used in place of the herbicide that provided the equivalent protection? Page 7 of 10 January 28, 2000 i If DTSC had followed the Final Cover design requirements as prescribed in Title 22, what would have been the required Final Cover design earthen material depth of the foundation layer, barrier layer and topsoil layer?. . Please cite the regulatory authority for DTSC to allow for an alternative Final Cover design from that prescribed in Title 22: This mitigation is inadequate by not addressing the variance from the standard or moisture maintenance: ' Initial Study U.S. EPA has identified soil gas contamination in the area of the Nogales Page 8, detention basin, which discharges into the residential streets. This identifies the ,Table 1 potential for contamination allowed to be carried into the residential community Mitigation by heavy rains run-off discharge onto Nogales Street that should be contained on- #3. site and appropriately discharged underground into the storm drain. Monitoring is not an adequate mitigation that would mitigate or prevent this.. Monitoring will only detect a problem not solve the problem or prevent it from happening again. What will DTSC do. to mitigate this? Monitoring ' is after the fact and not = acceptable. . Initial Study Page 17.. Initial Study What about noise impacts on the proposed off -site extraction wells that will be Page 36 :operating in perpetuity? Where will those wells be located within the residential community? This is not adequately evaluated and may have an impact. Initial Study Monitoring of run-off onto residential streets does not mitigate the potential of Page 39, . contaminants leaving the site, especially from any soil gas contamination at the Mitigation Nogales Street discharge area. Corrective action on a design change is what is 43.: needed for mitigation. What will DTSC do to mitigate this? Monitoring is after -the fact and is not acceptable. Page 8 of 10 January 28, 2000 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to reference the City's Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 98061114). This draft EIR and accompanying human health risk assessment addresses the closure and post -closure maintenance plans for BKK's Class III landfill and the development of an 18-hole golf course and over 1,000,000 square feet of building area for a technology center. In addition, a new four -lane roadway is proposed to be constructed abutting the southerly portion of the Class I landfill. This draft EIR provides much"more accurate. and current environmental "information than the sources cited in the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration. In addition, this draft EIR was sent to DTSC and has been publicly available since July of last year. 2. One of the sources referenced in numerous locations within the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a draft Negative Declaration prepared by the City of West Covina for a proposed parcel map (Parcel Map No. 245,85). This document was prepared in March of 1998 and was never certified nor did it come before the Planning Commission in a public hearing. This document should not be used .to reach conclusions when ' much more recent environmental documents are available. 3. "The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to properly document the conclusion reached" that there will be no impact on public services caused by this project. This conclusion appears to have been reached without contacting the City of West Covina's Public Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department, etc. The only reference to reaching this conclusion is BKK's Permit application. 4. The initial study was prepared without reference to currently available information and studies. DTSC is strongly encouraged to review their conclusions in light of more recent environmental studies that have been publicly available to DTSC prior to the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed Permit does not adequately address the potential long-term impact of the use of UP effluent on landscaping, vegetative soil, storm run-off, and residents living and working in the vicinity of the site. While LTP effluent may comply with LARWQCB standards, this does not take into account the impact of.long-term build-up of salts and boron in the vegetative soil. ,Since the cap is designed with a highly compacted, monolithic clay cap design, the soil in this cap is not assumed to be able to leach these materials but retains them. The build-up of salts and boron over time will likely render this vegetative soil ineffective in sustaining vegetative cover. It is recommended that an on -going comprehensive soil testing program be required in order to determine if the UP effluent is degrading the, ability of the soil to sustain healthy vegetative cover. If build-up of these materials is found to be occurring then provisions for mitigating this condition need to be provided for., 6. Figure 1 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to accurately depict the site's permit boundary and BKK's landfill property line. The map shows the boundary of the site as including the landfill's 583-acre parcel plus a separate adjoining parcel owned by BKK to the northeast that is outside the landfill's permit boundary. This separate parcel should not be referenced as being part of the project site for closure purposes. - Page 9 of 10 January 28, 2000 7. Figure 2 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to accurately depict the BKK Landfill site relative to surrounding land uses and improvements. The map used is a . USGS map that is at least 19 years old and does not accurately show land development that has occurred during this timeframe. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration inaccurately references drainage conditions at the eastside of the site. The water exiting the site at the northeast portion of the property flows off the site onto Nogales Street in front of single-family homes as surface water run-off. This water does not exit the site within an enclosed storm drain as is implied in the document. 9. What is the impact of BKK's current practice of disposing LTP effluent on the top decks of the Class I landfill via irrigation, even during rainy weather conditions? Doesn't this potentially increase infiltration of water into the waste cell and, if so, what are the impacts on the LTP and to the vegetative cover of the landfill? Page 10 of 10 January 28, 2000