01-18-1996 - Preliminary & Partial Final Closure Plan & Postclosure Maintenance Plan, BKK Landfill, Class III Disposal AreaCity of West Covina
To: City Manager
City Council
Waste Management and Environmental
Quality Commission
From: Environmental Services
Director
Subject: Preliminary and Partial Final
Closure Plan and Postclosure
Maintenance Plan, BKK Landfill,
Class{III Disposal Area
Memorandum
AGENDA
ITEM NO. .AGENDA
DATE 1-18-96
® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
January 10, 1996
Summary: This is a report on the approval by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) of the Preliminary
and Partial final Closure Plan and Postclosure Maintenance
Plan for the Class III Disposal Area at the BKK Landfill.
This includes the issuance of a Notice of Exemption by the
CIWMBIfor this project under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
1
In 1994,.BKK submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management
Board (CIWMB) a Closure and Postclosure Plan.for the Class III Disposal
Area. In early 1995, City staff, the Waste Management and Environmental
Quality Commission and the public completed a review of these Plans. We
formulated comments and transmitted them to the CIWMB. On December 20,
1995, the CIWMB issued of a Notice of Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act and approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Closure Plan and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for the Class III Disposal
Area at the BKK Landfill
Attached are the CIWMB documents that are related to this project.
These documents are:
A Notice of Exem
that relies onIa
Class l Exemptio
Exemption relate
protection ofpu
tion under the California Environmental Quality Act
Class 1 and Class 8 Categorical Exemption. The
relates to an ongoing project. The Class 8
to a project that provides for the enhanced
lic health and safety.
• An approval of'the Preliminary and Partial Final Closure Plan and
Postclosure Maintenance Plan for the Class III Disposal Area at the
BKK Landfi,ll.. IThis includes the revisions that CIWMB requested BKK
•
make to the Plans. To date, the City has not received a copy of the
revised plans referred to by the CIWMB.
• A copy of the CIWMB response to comments on the Preliminary and
Partial Final Closure Plan and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for the
Class III Disposal Area at the BKK Landfill. This contains the
comments from the City, Commission and the public and the CIWMB
responses.
Under the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act, any
responsible agency or person may file a challenge to the Notice of
Exemption within 35 days of its issuance. This challenge must be filed
in Superior Court. There will be no public hearing or further public
review of the matter unless the Court determines such is needed or
required.
This is probably the first time!the public has had an opportunity to see
the responses from the CIWMB. Apparently there is no requirement that
the CIWMB provide a copy of the responses to those people or agencies
who made comments on the plans.
There is.no specific action the staff suggests be taken on this matter.
Any possible legal action is something for City Council to consider.
The public may want to communicate their thoughts on this matter to the
CIWMB.
Recommendation
Is recommended that this report;be received and filed.
e -
Michael L. Miller
Environmental Services Director
Attachment
WMEQC Closure Plan
MLM
1/10/96
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
iT.> � ,F C is C:.N:A
Pete Wilson. Ccverncr
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD.
��c
:a�:
Final Workincr Draft Copy November 2, 1995 (Revision 3) R PE C E I VLEA
C
Ntr ` e to S-- anie?o. %Ianazer
Cir of W'-st Covina 4 Citi of Wast Covina
Waste Ivlanagement Enforcement Agency.
1444 W. Gar-,-,--,- Avenue South
I;Vest Covina, California 91793
RE: Preliminary- and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, BILK
Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, Facility No. 19-AF-0001
Dear Steve:
The following provides} a response to your October 5 and 26, 1995 letters concerning
Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans (Preliminary and
Partial Final Plans or -Plans) for the BKK Landfill. CIWVIB staff appreciate your comments
and assistance on BKKf closure/postclosure issues. -Your letter raises two main issues
regarding the Plans, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
------ --- ---approval of the Plans by the LEA.
Your letter questions GIWMB staff s determination that approval of the Plans is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of Title. 14, California Code of Regulations (14 CCR)
(Class 1 Exemption). Class 1 exemptions apply to operation and maintenance of existing
private facilities involving negligible or. no expansion of use beyond that previously existing.
CIWMB staff contend that the Class 1 categorical exemption would apply to approval of the
Partial Final Plans because they. address operation and maintenance activities that involve no -
expansion of use beyond that previously existing. The BKK Partial Final Plans specifically
address placement of final cover as the site progressively reaches final grades. BKK has been
implementing this activity since 1992 as prescribed'in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit,
Unclassified Use Permit No. 71 Revision 5 Amendment (Items 4.E., I LF., and 25), and
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 87-39 (Finding 22).
Specifically, your lettei states that in the LEA's review of both statutory and categorical
exemptions from CEQA, a categorical exemption from CEQA is not found that is applicable
to approval of closure land postclosure plans. Furthermore, your letter states that the
regulatory mandate under 14 CCR 18270 of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 3.4 is in
direct conflict with the notion of -a CEQA exemption.
Prinwd on Rerydrd Paper --
Final Draft Working Cope November ?. 1995 (Revision 3)
T'.. r:..al c-_-- -....t of Reasons for 14 CCR r..=.:! os (Jure 199 i
c'o` idts a cco-c':'_=i`%e basis that such an e .Y'�t:Cri VVo iii not re in conflict %v;r,l 14 CCR
Section. 132.The Final Statement of 'R.aScns states: "because land.iill closure is a project
requiring diSc-;!, ovary government approval subsection 18370(aj requires th. board and
(subsection: (c 4 requires the LEA] to ensure that an environmental document has been
prepared for the project that is adequate and appropriate for the project and reflects full
compliance with CEQA". Clearly, the intent is that compliance with CEQA be ensured
because landfill closure is a project requiring discretionary approval. The type of
documentation to ensure compliance with CEQA is not specified, nor could it be without
conducting a preliminary review or initial study for each specific project.
The Final Statement of Reasons also confirms CIw'MB's determination that the preferred
method of closure for protection of public health and safety and the environment is partial
closure as the site is filled (paragraph 3 ,of page V 3.4 - 9). This method is being
implemented by BKK. The Partial Final Plans ensure that the final cover is placed in a
manner that meets the standards of 14 CCR and provides a high level of short and long term
containment for protection of public health and safety and the environment. If final cover is
not placed as the site reaches final grades in accordance with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit
and WDRs, CIW-TMB staff are concerned that maintenance of existing site containment may be
jeopardized.
Concerns have also been expressed regarding the Partial Final and Preliminary Plans
authorizing or sanctioning site operations, grading, and closure dates which are under dispute.
These concerns are unfounded.
Preliminary Plans solely address conformity with 14 CCR closure/postclosure regulations and
cannot be implemented. The Partial Final Plans do not sanction site configurations which are
not authorized and only address implementation of individual closure activities that invalye no
expansion of use beyond that previously existing. The Plans must be amended or revis, d as
necessary to reflect resolution of ongoing disputes and any permit changes, until final
closure/postclosure plans for complete site closure are submitted. This would be required .
pursuant to 14 CCR 18272 and 18276.
To confirm CIWMB staff s determination on CEQA, a Notice of Exemption (NOE) pursuant
to 14 CCR 15374 will be filed upon approval of the Plans. Although approval of the Plans
is exempt from CEQA, extensive environmental review and consideration of comments from
the public and public agencies has been incorporated in the closure/postclosure plan review,
process (see following section and Attachment). In addition, any permit action would be
subject to a separate CEQA review as appropriate.
%1r. Jt:se Sara: r.ie,,o I
CI%VN[B star: th
rescluticn of i_su--s of o
b-,- t.!-e LEA is the prefer
Resources Code. It is i
does not relieve the ope;
reconstructions under 14
i
I
Final Draft NVorking Copy November 2,
Aooroval of the Plans bv the LEA
1995 (Revision 3)
t final approval of the Plans will provide a major step forward in
going dispute concerning the BKK Landfill. Approval of the Plans
,-ed approach for full approval of such plans according to the Public
nportant to note that full approval of the Partial Final Closure Plans
ator from performing any necessary future improvements or
CCR. v
CIWMB staff appreciate' your assistance in addressing all comments received during the
closure/po stc lo sure plan review process. A compilation of all comments received and
CIW'MB responses is provided in the Attachment. Based on the response to comments,
specific revisions to the:IPlans necessary to address the LEA's comments and gain full
approval have been identified. The specific changes will be requested by CIWNIB as
coordinator of the closure/postclosi.ire approval process.
I hope this response addresses your concerns and provides the LEA with the desired
assurances. If you have further questions, please contact me at (916) 255-2431 or Mr. Scott
Walker at (916) 255-1198.
Sincerely,
C
Douglas Okumura
Deputy Director
Permitting and Enk
Attachment- CIWMB
Postclosi
cc: Mr. Robert P. Oh
Los Angeles Regi
Mr. Mike ' Mill
Environmental
Mr. Mike Luke
BKK Corporati
Division
sponse to Comments Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and
Plans, BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area
Water Quality Control Board
Director, City of West Covina
Mr. Douslas Okumura
Deputy Director
Permittina & Enforcement Division
California Integrated Waste tilaraaement Board
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
Re: BKK Preliminary and Partialjinal Closure and Postclosure
Maintenance Plans ("Plans")
Dear Doug:
This letter is in response to yours of November 7, 1995 regarding the above -referenced
Plans. The City of West Covina LEA appreciates the time and effort that you and your staff
devoted to considering the LEA's' comments, coordinating them with the CIWMB's, and
requesting that BKK address many of those concerns. As to the two draft letters that you
anticipate finalizing and mailing on November 10, 1995, the LEA has the following
comments:
The LEA has been in contact with Kathryn Tobias regarding the CEQA issues, and we are
confident that such issues may be resolved so that the CIVVIVM and LEA have an
appropriate CEQA document to certify prior to approval of the Plans. We are also pleased
that this draft letter recognizes the fact that BKK must amend or revise the Plans as
necessary to reflect changed circumstances until closure/post-closure plans for complete site
closure are submitted.
The LEA. concurs in the proposed requested changes. Insofar as we have not identified any
other specific revisions at this time, we see no reason to delay finalizing this letter and
sending it to BKK..
i
N1.. Dcu='. as Okumura
1995
Pa,
.: _.�... : � and LEA '-a,, a .�. `�'�'. �.� o:: tl:�, scc e .. n' s "—siance of r.:.e
C,rTrPIa::J. V
L A v li co;:v::ence.� w ing its approval letter, which will be finalized upon completion of
CLQA req.:Lrements.
Please call me it you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steven L..Samaniego, R.E.H.S.
Waste Management Enforcement Manager
SLS:fl
cc: James Starbird, City Manager
Robert Ghirelli, RWQCB-LA Region
Mike Luke, BKK
i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • Pete Wilson, Governor
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
8800 Ca! Center Drive
i
Sacramento, California 95826
s
JKC 2 0
Mr. Mike Luk:
BKK Landfill
2210 South Azusa Avenue
West Covina, CA 91792
RE: Approval of Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans,
BKK Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, Los Angeles County, Facility No. 19-AF-0001 I.
Dear Mr. Luke:
Revised Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans (Plans) were
received on December 15, 1995. The subject Plans were revised specifically as requested in
our letter dated November 16, 1995.
The subject Plans meet the requirements of Title 14, California Code of Regulations
(14 CCR), Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 7.8 and Chapter 5, Article 3.4 and are hereby
approved.
In accordance with 14 CCR 18283(b), the financial assurance mechanism for closure and
postclosure maintenance costs must be updated to reflect the approved cost estimates within
60 days of this approval.
If you have any questions please contact me at (916) 255-2431 or Mr. Scott Walker at
(916) 255-1198.
Sincerely,
`rrl i
Douglas Okumura
Deputy Director
Permitting and Enforcement Division.
cc: Mr. Steve Samaniego
City of West Covina, Local Enforcement Agency
Mr. Robert P. Ghirelli
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Mr. Mike Miller '
Environmental Services Director, City of West Covina
fl
0
2 0 Im
i
bcc: Ralph Chandler
Dorothy Rice
Kathyrn Tobias
Elliot Block
Charlene Herbst- Closure and Remediation Branch
Scott Walker - Closure and Remediation Branch
Tim Crist- Closure and Remediation Branch
Don Dier - Permitting Branch
Garth. Adams - Permitting Branch
Paul Willman- Enforcement Branch
Mr. Mike -Luke
Page 2
STATE OF CAUFORNIA • • Pete Wilson, Governor
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD _
8800 Cal Center Drive '
Sacramento, California 95326 -m
GEC 2 1 19"
Mr. Steven Samaniego, Manager
City of West Covina
Waste Management Enforcement Agency
1444 W. Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, California 91793,
RE: Completion of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documentation, Partial
Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, BKK Landfill, Class III Disposal
Area, Facility No. 19-AF-0001
Dear -Steve:
The attached Notice of Exemption (NOE), Preliminary Review, and Initial Study Checklist
provides completed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation as
requested in your November 9, 1995, letter concerning approval of Preliminary and Partial
Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans (Preliminary and Partial Final Plans) for the
subject facility. The NOE was filed on December 21, 1995.
The Preliminary Review and Initial Study Checklist confirm that the project is exempt from
CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 and Class 8 categorical exemptions. Based on receipt
(December 15, 1995) of the specific requested changes to the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans, and completion of an analysis consistent with CEQA guidelines, California Integrated
Waste Management Board staff conclude that all conditions in your letter have been met.
If you have further questions, please contact me at (916) 255-2431 or Mr. Scott Walker at
(916) 255-1198.
Sincerely,
Douglas Okumura
Deputy Director
Permitting and Enforcement Division
Attachment: Preliminary Review and Initial Study Checklist
cc: Mr. Robert P. Ghirelli, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Mr. Mike Miller, Environmental Services Director, City of West Covina
Mr. Mike Luke, BKK Corporation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA, INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
A,",W Cal Cenlcr Drive
iacranicnio. Cali lornia ojV_n
TO:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTI
No,r]CE OF EXEMPTION
Officc of Planning and Research
I-tUl) Ientit �ttte:
tiacra;ncntu. C%IlikWllla yi's 14
Partial Final Closure and Postclusure Maintenance flans. BKK Landlill
2210 South Azusa Avcnue
West Covina. California
S. 34, 35, T. I S.. R. 10 W, S. 2.3. T.2 S., R. 10 W., S.B.B.&-NI.
Los Angeles County
I1CIV Nasol. 60%On,.l
The project consists of phased placement of final cover over portions of an active municipal solid waste landfill as
the site reaches final grades (Partial Final Closure). These activities are on-oino and started in 1992. The project
does not address complete site closure and postclosure which will occur upon future cessation of waste acceptance.
PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING THE PROJECT:
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWNIB) approved Partial Final Closure and Postclosure .
Maintenance Plans (Partial Final Plans) for the BKK Landfill on December 20, 1995 under the authority of Public
Resources Code (PRC) sections 43500 et seq..
PROJECT PROPONENT: j BKK Corporation
13ASIS AND REASONS FOR EXEMPT STATUS:
IWMB has determined that the project meets the requirements for Class I and Class 8 categorical exemption based;
on the following findings (additional documentation supporting this determination (Preliminary Review and Initial`
Study Checklist) is attached);
Placement of final cover as portions of the site reach final grade is prescribed for in the local land use permit,
Solid Waste Facilities Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. This project is an ongoing activity
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing and meets the requirements for
Class I categorical exemption (Title 14. California Code WRegulations (14 CCR) Section 15301). The Los
Angeles Regional Waiter Quality Control Board approved the Partial Final Closure and Postclosure
Maintenance Plans on March 29, 1995.
2. The project provides
landfill gas and leach
that apply to the ong(
closure project. Thes
Agency (LEA) under
categorical exemptioi
CONTACT PER
SON: Mr
Siu,nature
t)uu�,Jas O unul
I)eputy I)IN001-
or enhanced protection of public health and safety primarily from potential release of
,te. Minimum standards for protection of public health and safety and the environment
ing active landfill operations (14 CCR, Division-7, Chapter 3) also apply to the partial
standards are enforced by the City of West Covina Solid Waste Local Enforcement
oversight by IWMB. The project therefore meets the requirements for Class 8
(14 CCR Section 15308).
oft alker at (916) 255-1 198.1, .7
llc Date: 1-2 (i241- - — q
By
California Environmental Quali fct CE A
Preliminary Review and Initial Study Checklist
BKK Sanitary Landfill Class III Disposal Area
Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
Project Title: BKK Sankary Landfill Class III Disposal Area
Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
Lead Agency California'Intearated Waste 1vtanagement Board (CIWNIB)
Permitting, andEnforcementDivision
8950 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento. CA 95826
Contact Person: Scott Walker. Manager
Closure and Remediation Branch North Section
(916) 255 1� 1198
Project Location: BKK Landfill
2210 South Azusa Avenue
West Covina, California
Project Proponent: BKK
-- I. Project Description.
The proposed project consists o
waste, at the BKK Class III Sanitary U
and.. erosion. control systems and landfil
be progressively upgraded to meet clos
incorporated into the ongoing active lay
systems. The proposed project is desci
Postclosure Maintenance Plans (Decem
postclosure requirements of Title 14, C
Chapter 5, Article 3.4. Specific envire
project are described in the Report of l
standards for protection of public healt
active landfill (14 CCR, Division 7, Cl
phased placement of final cover over municipal solid
idfill as the landfill reaches final grades. Drainage
gas monitoring and control systems are proposed to
Lre standards as the final cover is constructed, and
dfill's existing environmental monitoring and control
bed in Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and
ier 1995). These Plans address the closure and
difornia Code of Regulations. (14 CCR), Division 7,
imental controls and mitigations that apply to the
isposal Site Information (December 1994). Minimum
and safety and the environment that apply to the
ipter 3) also apply to the partial final closure project.
Approximately 0.85 million cubic yards of compacted soil from the existing onsite
low permeability material borrow sources will be used for the final cover. The final cover
will ultimately be constructed over the�entire Class III waste fill area (approximately 1.79
acres). Final cover. placement for 24 of the total 179 acres has been already completed since
Page 1
CE � Preliminary Review and Initial StuuChecklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
1992. Thickness of the proposed Final cover is a minimum of five feet, as compared with a
required daily cover minimum thickness of one foot.
The Partial Final Postclosure %faintenance Plan is required to ensure that the final
cover and environmental monitoring and control systems are maintained to protect public
health and safety and the environment throughout the postclosure maintenance period. The
postclosure maintenance period will continue as long as the site poses a threat to public health
and safety and the environment and spans a minimum of 30-years from the date of final
closure (14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 7.8).
Phased closure as specified in the Partial Final Closure Plans will be constructed as
annual increments. The final closure date is currently the subject of a legal dispute between.
the City of West Covina and BKK. If the final closure date or grading plans change, the
Preliminary and Partial Final Closure Plans will require revision or amendment pursuant r•.
CCR 18272 and 18276. The Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans do not
address complete site closure. Separate Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans for
complete site closure are required pursuant to 14 CCR 18255(a).
The placement of final cover as portions of the site reach final grade is an ongoing
activity as prescribed in the Unclassified Use Permit No. 71 Revision 5 Amendment (Items
4.E., 11.F., and_25) issued by the City of West Covina. Approximately 24 acres of final
cover has been constructed since 1992, consistent with the Preliminary and Partial Final
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans. The proposed project has been approved by the
Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) on March 29,
1995, and is consistent with current Solid Waste Facilities Permit 19-AF-0001 issued by the
City of West Covina Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) in 1979. Landfill gas
monitoring and control is also required pursuant to permits issued and enforced by.. the South
Coast Air Quality Management District. The facility is also subject to a Stipulated Permanel' '`
Injunction (SPI), a court action primarily addressing landfill gas monitoring and control. The
SPI was initiated in 1984 and is currently in effect. The site also contains a f� mer hazardous
waste landfill which is subject to various regulatory orders issued by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
H. Project Environmental Setting
The project site is.an active Class III municipal solid waste landfill located within the
city limits of West Covina, Los Angeles County. The site comprises 583 total acres of which -
approximately 350 acres have been used for waste disposal. An additional 24 acres (North
Area) is planned for waste disposal. Landfill operations started in 1963. Surrounding land
use is predominantly residential and commercial. The closest homes are within 200 feet from
the limits of waste disposal of the former Class I/III landfill.
Page 2
CEQA Prainary
BKK Landfill Partial Final
Previously, a portion of the site, co
Class III disposal facility for disposal of b,
Hazardous waste disposal ceased in Noven
area, was certified closed in accordance wi
Non -hazardous municipal solid waste is cu
which comprises a. total of 179 acres. Pen
the date of cessation of waste acceptance,
acre site to be developed for waste dispose
The BKK site is located at the wes
Jose Hills which reach elevations of 1,300
the relatively flat surrounding alluvial vall
characterized by mild winters and warm d:
vicinity of the site is between 15 and 17v
ephemeral. Regional geologic units at the
rocks of the Miocene Puente Formation. i
asymmetric anticlinal fold, trending east-v
been identified at the site. Geologic units
bearing with minimal yields of poor qualil
and 50 feet below ground surface) is local
alluvium and weathered bedrock. Ground
III. CIWMB Authority
Partial final closure and postclosur
or more individual closure activities, is all
14 CCR 18255(b)(2). The Final Statemei
regulations (June 1990) states that CIWM
public health and safety and the environm
of page V 3.4 - 9). The proposed project
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plar
CIWMB includes as part of the re,
postclosure maintenance plans, consultatic
proposed project. Detailed review is dire
Control Board and Solid Waste Local Eni
comment period is also included in the pi
proposed project dated February 20, 1995
process and this Initial Study Checklist. .
including CIWIMB responses is dated Noi
and Initial Study O*ciclist
and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
nprising 195 acres, was operated as a Class I and
th hazardous and non -hazardous wastes.
ber 1984. This area. denoted as the Class I/III
h US EPA and DTSC requirements in May 1989.
Tently being disposed of in the Class III area
ling the outcome of the ongoing dispute regarding
he potential exists for other portions of the 583
n end of the east -west to northeast trending San
;et above mean sea level; about 900 feet above
floors. The climate is mediterranean,
summers. The average rainfall in the immediate
1es per year. Onsite surface water flow is
e include predominantly marine sedimentary
ologic structure is dominated by a regional
t to northeast. No known Holocene faults have
the BKK site are generally considered non -water
ground water. Shallow ground water (between 10
and seasonally found within onsite shallow
ater flow directions generally follow topography.
maintenance, consisting of implementation of one
wed for explicitly under 14 CCR 17764(b)(1) and
of Reasons for 14 CCR closure/postclosur-,
's preferred method of closure for proter-aon of
at is.partial closure as the site is filled (paragraph 3
Ls specified in the Prelimiingry and Partial Final
constitutes this method of closure.
;w and approval process of final closure and
with agencies having jurisdiction over the
y coordinated with the Regional Water Quality
cement Agency (LEA). A 45-day public
;ess. Public and agency comments on the
ave been incorporated in the review and approval
compilation of all public and agency comments
nber 15, 1995.
Page 3
CEQAfreliminary Review and Initial Stu}Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
IV. Significant Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Alternatives to the Project
Based on preliminary analysis. CI%�-%M has determined that the proposed project is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with 14 CCR
Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption). The basis for this determination is that the project
consists of activities which involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously
existing. In addition, because approval of the proposed project by CIWMB consists of an
action taken by a regulatory agency under it's authority to assure the maintenance, restoration,
enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves
procedures for protection of the environment, the proposed project is also exempt from CEQA
in accordance with 14 CCR Section 15308 (Class 8 Exemption). Preliminary Closure and
Postclosure Maintenance Plans solely address conformity with 14 CCR c losure/po stc 16 sure
requirements and therefore do not constitute a project under CEQA.
The purpose of this review and attached Initial Study Checklist is to determine if an
exemption is consistent with the provisions of 14 CCR 15300.2 in order to confirm if the proposed
project is exempt from CEQA. Based on the attached Initial Study Checklist, CIW1VIB has
determined.that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment as that term is
defined in the Public Resources Code Section 21068, and is exempt from CEQA in accordance with
the Class 1 and Class 8 categorical exemptions. The proposed project will be conducted under the
oversight of CIWMB and the LEA utilizing all applicable minimum standards as required under 14
CCR, Division_7, Chapter 3.
The only alternative to the proposed project identified is to delay all closure activities until
complete site closure. This alternative would significantly delay attainment of higher standards for
environmental control and would be in conflict with protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
Page 4
Attachment 1
Initial Study Checklist for
BKK Sanitary Landfill Class III Disposal Area
Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
The purpose of this checklist is to identify ,any reasonable possibility of "significant effect on the
environment" as that term is used in Section 21068 of the Public Resources Code and to determine if
the exceptions pursuant to 14 CCR Section'' 15300.2 apply, thereby negating categorical exemption of
the project.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes . Maybe No
to Earth'
Will the project will result in:
a..
Unstable earth conditions or'
changes in geologic structures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering of
the soil?
C.
Changes in topography or
ground surface relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e.
Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion
of soils, either on or off the. site?
g.
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
❑ ❑
a ❑
t.
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ 14
Page 1
BKK La
Explanation:
The proposed
sourc.-s, and pl
final grades.
landfill equipr
to constructiot
and grading ai
operations. T
project as con
include more
provided in th
unstable condi
H. Air Will
a. Sub:
deter
b. Crea
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
Partial Final Closure.and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
)roject consists of excavation of low permeabili ;i soils from onsit 'eoro-.v
icement over incremental phases of waste fill areas that have been brought to
'inal cover soils are moisture conditioned and compacted in place using existing
tent. Geotechnical testing of compacted soils is performed to ensure adherence
quality assurance procedures and final cover specifications. Soil excavation
tivities are consistent with normal ongoing active landfill daily cover
to potential for soil erosion is reduced by implementation of the proposed
pared with ongoing active landfill conditions because the Partial Final Plans
tringent standards for drainage and erosion control. Slope stability analysis
Partial Final Closure Plan indicates that the proposed project will not cause
Lions or expose people to geologic hazards such as earthquakes or landslides.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
project will result in:
al air emissions or
ion of ambient air. quality?
of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperature, or any change -in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
I
Yes
n
n
0
Mavbe No
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant air quality impacts. Placement
of final cover as proposed in the project provides an effective mitigation of existing potential
landfill gas impacts by reducing air and water contact with the waste (Bonaparte 1995; US
EPA 1993; and US EPA 1991). Air and water contact with waste can create adverse
environmental impacts by facilitating the release of landfill leachate and gas. Landfill gas
releases can cause explosion hazards, odors, and human contact with potentially toxic trace
gases. Additional landfill. gas control is included in the proposed project by incorporation of
the site's existing landfill gas control system within the final cover. No significant additional
vehicular or equipment air emissions over what is currently in place for the ongoing active
landfill operations is anticipated because only onsite borrow sources for final cover soil are
used and no significant additional equipment will be used beyond what is normally osec'
the active landfill operations. Odor and dust control for the operating landfill required to be
Page 2
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist .
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
controlled pursuant to 14 CCR 17713 and 17706 would apply to the proposed project.
Specific control measures are included in the Report of Disposal Site Information.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe , No
lII. Water
Will the project will result in:
a.
Changes in .currents, or the course
of direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters?
❑
❑
CM
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
❑
❑cl
C.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
❑
❑
d.
Change 'in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
❑
❑IN
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to, temperature;
dissolved oxygen or ':ybidity?
❑
D
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow cf ground waters?
o
o
19
g.
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
❑
❑
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
❑
❑
cm
is
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
❑
❑
IN
Page 3
A•t�
Explanation:
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
fill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
No fresh or marine surface waters exist in the area of the project. The proposed project
consists of placement of soils from onsite cover borrow sources over incremental phases of
waste fill areas that have been brought to final grades. Drainage and erosion control required
for the operating landfill pursuant to 14 CCR 17708_ would apply to the proposed project.
Surface drainage and erosion" control measures for final cover phases and borrow areas are
incorporated into the drainage control system for the ongoing landfill operation and specified
in the Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan. Drainage and erosion control
standards for final cover are more stringent than for an operating landfill without final cover.
Therefore, the proposed project would enhance protection of surface waters. Construction of
final cover reduces potential percolation of rainfall through the existing waste fill. Percolation
through the waste fill can produce leachate which can potentially contaminate ground water.
Therefore, the proposed project would be beneficial in protection of ground water quality.
Based on ground water conditions in the area, the proposed project would not alter ground
water beneficial (uses or result in significant changes to ground water flow. No significant
impacts on surface or ground water are anticipated.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
1V. Plant Life Will the project will result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plant
(inch 1 g trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)? ❑
b: Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
e. Deterior
habitat?
of existing plant
n
U
0
co
0
Page 4
Attachment 1- Initial Sfudv Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postelosure Maintenance Plans
Explanation:
The proposed project consists of placement of soils from onsite cover borrow sources over
incremental phases of waste fill areas that have been brought to final grades. Onsite borrow
sources used for final cover are the same as used for daily cover which is part of the ongoing
landfill operations. Landfill gas extraction and control systems are then constructed within the
final cover phases and incorporated into the existing landfill gas extraction and control system
which.is required for ongoing operations. Shallow rooted vegetation is then established by
hydroseed and maintained to provide erosion control and prevent penetration and damage of
the final cover. Vegetation specifications are provided in the Partial Final Closure and
Postclosure iNIaintenance Plans and are similar to those used for final closure of the Class 1/III
area which was completed in 1989. No significant impacts on plant life are anticipated
because the site has previously been excavated, filled, compacted, and graded as part of the
ongoing active landfill operations and no new areas will be disturbed for the proposed project.
In addition, the site is not utilized or zoned for agricultural land. .
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
V. Animal Life Will the project will result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? ❑ ❑
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, endangered species of animals? ❑ ❑
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? ❑ ❑
d. Deterioration of existing fish or
wildlife habitat? ❑ ❑
Explanation:
No significant impacts on animal life are anticipated because the site has been previously
excavated, filled, compacted, and graded as part of the active ongoing landfill operations and
no new areas will be disturbed for the proposed partial final closure project.
Page 5
VI.
BKK Lan
. Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
drill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
Land Use Will the project w1II result
in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
Explanation:
The proposed 1
land use beeau
operated as a 1
local land use .
Placement of f
Unclassified U
been conductec
VII. Natural Res
Will the proj
the rate of u:
Explanation:
Substantial or notentially substantial adverse chan«e:
Yes Mai: be `o
oject is anticipated to result in no significant impacts to present or planned
the site is currently an ongoing active landfill facility and will continue to be
idfill until complete site closure. The site is zoned appropriately and has a
:rmit for such use (Unclassified Use Permit No. 71 Revision 5 Amendment).
tal cover as portions of the site reach final grades is prescribed in the
Permit No. 71 Revision 5 Amendment (Items 4.E., I I .F., and 25) and has
since 1992 consistent with the Partial Final Plans.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
t result in an increase in
of any natural resources? o 0 CM
The proposed project, is not expected to result in an increase in rate of use of any natural
resources. Water and onsite soils are, used for final cover construction but not at a significant
increased rate than normally used for existing ongoing landfill operations.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Ma be
VIH. Risk of Upset Will the project involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset conditions? o
F7
to
Page 6
IX.
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑
Explanation:
The proposed project does not involve any use of potentially hazardous substances other than
oils and fuels which are used for construction equipment operation. No significant additional
equipment will be used for the proposed project beyond what is used for the active ongoing
landfill operations. Emergency response required for the active ongoing landfill operations
pursuant to 14 CCR 17638 and 17696 would apply to the proposed project. The proposed
project would be covered by the existing Emergency Contingency Plan which is contained in
the Partial Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan and Report of Disposal Site Information.
Therefore, -no significant impacts in these areas are anticipated.
Substantial or totentially_substantial adverse chanee:
I Yes Mavbe No
Transportation/Circulation
Will the project involve:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial P
impact upon existing
P
transportation system?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards.t o motor
f
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ IN
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
13 ❑
IN
❑ ❑
Page 7
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
i
Explanation:
The proposed project is within an active landfill facility of restricted public access. Site
security for the active landfill required pursuant to 14 CCR 17658 would apply to the
proposed project. Site security measures in place to prevent uncontrolled access include a
chain link periimeter fence and 24-hour surveillance by security guards and/or landfill
operations and maintenance staff. No additional vehicular traffic over what is currently in
place for the active landfill operations is anticipated because only onsite borrow sources for
final cover soil are used and no significant additional equipment 'will be used for the proposed
project beyond what is used for the active landfill operations. Traffic control for active
landfill operations required pursuant to 14 CCR 17659, 17660, and 17714 would apply to the
proposed project. Specific traffic control measures are included in the Report of Disposal Site
Information. Therefore, no significant impacts to transportation/circulation are anticipated.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
Y. Public Services Will the project have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any or the
following areas: .
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? ❑ ❑
d. Parks or their recreational facilities? ❑ ❑
e. Maintenance of public facilities
includine roads? ❑ ❑
f. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑
Explanation: `
The proposed project will not significantly impact schools or fire, police, emergency, or other
governmental services. No public facilities will be altered due to the proposed partial final
closure project.
Page- 8
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
11
BKK Landfill Partial Final, losure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
XI. Energy Will the project result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
❑ ❑
The proposed project will not significantly impact use of fuel or energy sources. No
significant additional construction equipment or use beyond the active landfill operations is
proposed. Therefore, fuel use is not anticipated to change from what is currently used as part
of the ongoing landfill operations.
XII. Utilities Will the project resu
a need for new systems, or substan
alterations to any utilities?
Explanation:
The proposed project will not requ
systems, sewers, water supply, and
active landfill operations, and there
substantial alterations to any existb
XIII. Noise Will the project re.,
a. Increases in existing noise
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Maybe No
in
f
the use of any local utilities (e.g. roads, storm drainage
ewer supply) significantly beyond what is used for the
-e, will not result in a need for new systems or
utilities.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:.
in:
Yes Maybe No
a ❑ cc
f Page 9
Attachment I- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
b. Exposure of people to severe ❑ O
noise levels?
Explanation:
The proposed project includes no significant additional use of construction equipment beyond
what is used for the active ongoing landfill operations. Noise abatement mufflers have been
installed on ally heavy equipment used at the facility and hearing protection is provided to the
equipment operators and other site personnel to further mitigate the potential for occupational
noise related hazards. Noise control for the active landfill required pursuant to 14 CCR
17712 would apply to the specific project. Specific noise control measures are specified in .
the Report of Disposal Site Information. Therefore, the proposed project will result in no
increase in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
XIV., Public Healtti & Safety
Will the project involve:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental) health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
Explanations
Yes Mavbe No
❑ ❑ IN
The proposed project will not result in creation of a health hazard or exposure of people to . a
potential health hazard. The proposed project is within an active landfill facility. The facility
is restricted to public access and site security measures are in place to prevent uncontrolled
access.
Placement of, final cover as proposed in the project provides short and long term beneficial
effects on environmental conditions at a landfill by reducing potential air and water contact
with the waste (Bonaparte 1995; US EPA 1993; US EPA 1991; and CIWMB 1990).. Air and
water contact with waste can create adverse environmental impacts by facilitating release of
landfill leachate and gas. Leachate releases can contaminate surface and ground water which
can then adversely affect public health and safety. Landfill gas releases can cause explosion
hazards and human contact with potentially toxic trace gases.
Page 10
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse chance:
Yes Mavbe No
XV. Aesthetics
a. Will the project result in the'i obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to the public view? Will the
proposal produce new light',or glare? ❑ ❑
Explanation:
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts in the area of
aesthetics. The projected final grades in the Partial Final Closure and Postclosure
Maintenance include -an approximately 58 acre top deck area constructed with a minimum
slope of 3% and maximum elevation of 1050 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The existing
maximum height of the. closed Class I/III area is also 1050 feet MSL. Postclosure settlement
is expected to reduce the maximum',height of the waste fill. The current maximum elevation
(December 1995) of the ongoing active landfill operation is approximately 1000_ feet MSL.
No new light or glare is anticipated because the final cover will be composed of earthen
materials.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
XVI. Cultural/Paleontological a
a. Will the project result in the Ialteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric
or historic archaeological site? ❑ ❑
b. Will the project result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building ❑ ❑
structure, or object?
C. Does the project have the poI. tential to
cause a physical change which would,
affect -unique' ethnic cultural'! values? ❑ ❑
Page 11
Attachment I- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill. Partial Final Closure and PostcIosure Maintenance Plans
Explanation:
The proposed pi is not anticipated to result in significant cultural or paleontological
impacts becaus d it is within an activ- landfill facility and no new disturbed areas % iii be
created for the project.
Substantial or potentially substantial adverse change:
Yes Mavbe No
I
YVII. Cumulative Effects
a. Will the project result in air or water
� P
contamination which by themselves
are -not significant, but when considered
in light lof other local sources, may be
cumulatively significant? o 0
Explanation:
The proposed
effects. Place
beneficial effe
contact with tl
Air and water
release of Ian(
water. LaWfi
toxic trace ga:
provides shore
drainage and i
)roject is not anticipated to result in a significant impact due to cumulative
vent of final cover as proposed in the project provides short and long term
:ts on environmental conditions at a landfill by reducing potential air and water
e waste (Bonaparte 1995; US EPA 1993; US EPA 1991; and CIWMB 1990).
contact with waste can create adverse environmental impacts by facilitating
Fill leachate and gas. Leachate releases can contaminate surface and ground
l gas releases can cause explosion hazards and human contact with .potentially
-s. Intrusion of air into waste can cause landfill fires. The project also
and long term beneficial effects on environmental conditions by enhancing
rosion control.
Yes No
Summary of Fit
explained herein,
11 Based on study findings as
ion is made for the following conclusions:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below Iself sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
Page 12
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
BKK Landfill Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? o
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals? 4 o
C. Does .the project have impacts %vhich are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? o
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial';adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o
e. Do the activities of this J
ro'ect have an influence
P
on recreation, aesthetics, noise, cultural resources,
or any other environmental issues which have
not been included in this checklist?
Determination of Significant Effect On the Basis of This Initial. Evaluation (check one):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment or significant cumulati� a effect on the environment.
The exceptions pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15300.2 do not apply and ..
therefore do not negate categorical exemption of the project.
i`
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect(s) on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE. DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the
I'
L
0
E3
;,
Page 13
BKK
Ti
Attachment 1- Initial Study Checklist
,flll Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by
miti_Tation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,
if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially siznificant unless
mitigated." An EN�VIRONyIENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effect that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
includiga revisi9.nsefImitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
5C-orr
�.tCUMu/r
Name
Ja c-K
Name
Date
/ z- zo - ? S
Date
0
L
Page 14
CF C_%LFCR: !A I' Pete Wilson. Ccverncr
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOAR RECEIVE O
sscu Cal c_..... _ LEA
Final Draft `Vorking Copy November?. 1995 (Revision 3)
Cifij of West Covina
B'LK _1^%"o. '1i
:_i0 SQLCh Azr�_sa enue
West Covina. CA 91792
Re: Preliminary and Partial Final C
BKK Landfill, Class III Dispos
Facility No. 19-AF-0001
Dear Mr. Luke:
Upon further discussions with Mr. Ste,
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), sp4
Closure.iPostclosure Plans (Plans) have
LEA's comments and gain full approv
which are requested. In addition, plea
requested in recent CIWMB correspon
;ure and Postclosur %laintenance Plans,
Area, City of West Covina, Los Angeles County,
L Samaniego of the City of West Covina Solid Waste
Fic revisions to the Preliminary and Partial Final
;en identified which are necessary to address the
Attached are the specific revisions to the Plans
provide the financial assurances information as
ice dated October 23 to Ms. Noelle Kazarian.
Please submit two copies each to the CI`V VIB, LEA and Regional Board of -either replacement
- pages to the Plans or new copies which' address the attached revisions. It would be helpful if,
rather than replacement pages, a new Volume 1 is submitted which reflects all revisions.
Replacement pages for Volume 3 would be acceptable.
If you have any.questions please cont;
(916) 255-119`
Sincerely,
r
Douglas Okumura
Deputy Director
Permitting and Enforcement Division
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Samaniego
City of West Covina, Local
Mr. Robert P. Ghirelli
Los Angeles Regional Water
me at (916) 255-2431 or Mr. Scott Walker at
Agency
itv Control Board
C�
•
Final Workin- Draft November 2, 1995
Requested Revisions to Address
City of West Covina LEA Approval of
Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans,
BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, West Covina
Preliminary Closure Plan
1. Revise first sentence) of paragraph 2 of Section 1.1 Page 1-1 as follows: 'sir
being.
7
3.
4.
. -. .................. ----------
Revise Section 1.1 to clarify the description and use of the terms Class I, Class ME,
and Class III. Revise all references to the terms as necessary to improve consistency.
Add the following bullet item to ,Section 1.2.2 Page 1-3:
Delete Section 1.3.1.
5. Insert Arrindr
6. Revise first ser
fter Rev. 5 in the second sentence of Section 1.3.6 Page 1-9.
of paragraph 1 of Page 4-2, as follows: At the -eg4est of
F is �• : ":�:, _ v'�;: �.: c...�C: Z. 19�1) P1'?' 2 of
and Partial F nai Closure. Postclosure Plans
In addition, revi;•t: the preliminary postclosure maintenance cost estimate (Section
6.2.11) for Vegetative Cover and Irrigation System if necessary to reflect this
additional language.
13. Delete Sections 6.1.10 and 6.2.7 and replace with brief general description [. i.e., site
watchman, perimeter fence, locked gates, etc.] of site security measures.
14. Revise Plan 2 base map to include turbine generator and maintenance buildings.
Partial Final Closure. Plan
15. Revise paragraph 2 of Page 1-2 as follows:
The FCFPMP for the Class III area cannot be developed at this time because the
lifespan of disposal operations has not been established.
. . . . .. 1� I - - __ __1__ ____-I_ •T"-1 - 7 A
Final Working Draft November 2, 1995 Page 3 of 5
Requested Revisions, to Address LEA Approval
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
FR ee" e e evens-ef the a ;edispesal--a:Fe .,.h-,.e the
In addition. OWNS staff will requestthat the following sentence be added to the first
paragraph of Section 1.5 Page 1-4:
16. Copy and insert referenced information (Section 1.3) from the Preliminary Closure into
Section 1.4 Page 1-4. of the Partial Final Closure Plans.
17. Insert e before Site Acreage in the title of Section 2.1.8 Page 2-4.
13. Add the following sentence to paragraph 2 of Section 3 Page 3-1:
19. Copy and insert referenced information from the Preliminary Closure Plans into
Section 4.1.2 Page 4-1 and Section 4.2.2 Page 4-3 of the Partial Final Closure Plans.
20. Add the following statement as a separate paragraph in Section 4.9.1 Page 4-14:
21. Revise the sentenc
This program 13as-
MitFaa"'Ma ground
collected liquids.
22. Revise sentence 2
This program has-
2 of Section 5.1.1 Page 5-1 to the following:
.e_ ef&etive in -nkieat:�_ addresses the Geed at tr�u u-ne for
iter contamination, recovering affected around water, and treating
of Section 5.5.1 Page 5-8 to the following:
been eg tive :n-„:kat:ne addresses;the need at y:.s dine for
n
cr..:: �� c;'.::. T p ., No• e :�cer -2. icy;
LEA A
BK.K La L:: l .:e : ^.i ar.- and P:^ aI F
CrJ' 2i
C'os :: ,Postctosure P1a..
- - _ =-�' co .'o`•'.:-.7 lard%'' -'s _'�--a:ed at the Cass 1111 La-dfi'.
Page 4 of 5
Cog: ..:rsert referenced irfornation from the Prelim inary Closure Plans into
Section_ 5.4.2 Pave 5-7. and Section 5.5.2 Page 5-3 of the Partial Final Closure Plan.
23a. Add the following sentence to Page 6-1 Section 6.2 A---'**`-" a -a e ceTuf�.aL on
subrnitred to rriert cQmglete sFte fina� c16 ur plan re wirexnznts
Co a:�d insert cost tables and c�zrtiiicate of insurance from the "Preliminary Closure
F.
Plans into Section 8-1 Page 8-1 and Section 8-2 Pave 8-2 of the Partial Final Closure
Plans.
Partial Final
25. Revise paragraph 2 of Page 1-2
The FCFPMP for the Class III
lifespan of disposal operations
re Maintenance Plan
follows:
t cannot be developed at this time because the
not been established. la er.a to "'�""�' "h =
26. Revise sentence 2 of Section 5.1'.1 Page 5-1 to the following:
This program en -MWO
9 groundwater contamination, recovering affected ground water, and treating
collected liquids.
27. Revise first sentence of Section;5.5.2 Page•5-9 as follows:
Appropriate landfill gas collection and control that conforms to SCAQ,'vM-. l
CAR (I Er axid. C VI <`requirements ...
Revise Section 5.5.6 Page 5-10 !as follows:
Final Working Draft November 2, 1995 Page 5 of 5
Requested Revisions to Address LEA Approval
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure;Postclosure Plans
The landfill gas collection and control system will operate through the postclosure
maintenance period or until the operator receives written authorization from the
SCAQ,-VID, -1- and C7 1 to discontinue operations.
28. Section 5.5.3 Page Si 10: Provide description of gas system drilling procedures for
avoiding asbestos hazards either in the section or referenced as an appendix.
29. Add the following sentence to paragraph 2 of Section 6-2, Page 6-2,
30. Copy and insert referenced information from the Preliminary Postclosure Plans. into
Sections 6.2 and 6.7 of the Partial Final Postclosure Plans. Change Section 6.4
reference to Section 6.2 of the Partial Final Postclosure Plans rather than Section 5.2.2
of the Preliminary Postclosure Plans.
31. Copy and insert referenced financial assurances information from the Preliminary Plans
into Sections 7.1 and 7.2 Page 7-1 of the Partial Final Postclosure Plans.
32. Copy and insert referenced postclosure land use information from the Preliminary
Plans into Sections' 8 Page 8-1 of the Partial Final Postclosure Plans.
Emergency Response Plan
33. Add the following sentences to Section 9 Page 9-1:
Add the gas turbine and steam plant Emergency Response Plan to Attachment 9
(Referenced in Attachment 9 Section XI-3 page 24).
Provide updated names and telephone numbers as necessary in Section 9 page 9-1.
•
Attachmer
BKK Landfill Partial Final
it 1 Initial Study Checklist
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
References
BKK Corporation. December 1995. Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure
Maintenance Plans, BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, West Covina, California.
BKK Corporation. December 1994. Report of Disposal Site Information, BKK Sanitary Landfill,
2210 South Azusa Avenue, West Covina,:; California.
Bonaparte, Rudolph. 1995. Long -Term Performance of Landfills. GEOENVIRONMENT 2000
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Specialty Conference. New Orleans. Louisiana.
February 24-26, 1995.
California Integrated Waste Management [Board (CIWMB). November 15, 1995. Final CIWMB
Response to City of West Covina Letter Dated October 9, 1995, Preliminary and Partial Final
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, West
Covina.
California Integrated Waste Management lBoard (CIWMB). June 1990. Final Statement of Reasons.
Disposal Site Standards for Closure and Postclosure, Application and Approval of Closure and
Postclosure Maintenance Plans, and Financial Responsibility for Closure and Postclosure Maintenance
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 7.8 and Chapter 5, Articles
3.4 and 3.5.
United States Environmental Protection
Facility Criteria Technical Manual. EP
United States Environmental Protection
Disposal Facility Criteria; Final Rule. i
4
;ncy (US EPA). November 1993. Solid Waste Disposal
0-R-93-017
;ncy (US EPA). 40 CFR Parts.257 and 258, Solid Waste
ber 9, 1991 Federal Register.
Page 15
RECEIVED
LEA
Final Working Draft. November ?, 1995
amity O
CI`NAM Response to i �V9Si COVa
i�
Ciry of `Vest Covina LEA Letter Dated October 9, 1995
Preliminary andl' Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans,
BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, West Covina
By
Scott Walker, CEG
Senior Engineerina5lg Geologist
Tim Crist, PE
Associate Waste Management Engineer
Background:
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have prepared this response to
the City of West Covina Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) letter dated
October 5, 1995, concerning Preliminary and Partial Final Closure and Postclosure
11
Maintenance Plans (Preliminary and Partial Final Plans or Plans) for the BKK Sanitary .
Landfill, Class III Disposal Area. The LEA's comments included by reference comments
provided by the public and City of West Covina. Response is provided for all comments
compiled during the review process. The purpose of this response is to facilitate approval of
the Plans and resolution of closure and postclosure issues at the BKK Landfill. A separate
request will be transmitted to BKK based on this response for revisions to the Plans necessary
_ for the LEA's approval.
The LEA has indicated that BKK has not revised Preliminary and Partial Final Plans to reflect
the LEA's comments. + Denial of closure and postclosure plan approval by the LEA requires a
written record of the specific detailed circumstances for denial pursuant to Section 18271(a)
and (b) of Title 14, California. Code of Regulations (14 CCR),, Division 7, Chapter 5.
BKK submitted a general response on September 27, 1995 to the LEA's comments. BKK
indicated in their response that they had reviewed and considered the. LEA's comments and
had responded fully to all concerns of the CIWMB. BKK further indicated that the majority
of LEA comments were not relevant to final review and approval of the Plans.
I
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Preliminary
and Partial Final Plans on March 29, 1995. By letter dated September 29, 1995, CIWMB
staff indicated they were prepared to.proceed with final approval and that the LEA's
forthcoming approval was anticipated.
Preliminary and Partial Final Plans for the BKK Landfill consist of the following documents:
1. September 27; 1995, BKK Response to Comments, Preliminary and Partial Final
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal
Area, West Covina
P_j
•
Final Workins Draft- November 2, 1995 Page -2
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Ptanning and Building Department Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
2. June 30, 1995, BKK Response to Comments, Preliminary and Partial Final Closure
and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, BKK Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area,
West Covina
3. Landfill Settlement Contour Map (Received December 27, 1994)
4. Preliminary Closure and Preliminary iPostclosure Maintenance Plan for the BKK
Sanitary Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, *West Covina, Revision 1: December 9,
1994. (Volumes 1 and 2)
5. Appendix A, .Partial Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, .BKK Sanitary.
Landfill, Class III Disposal Area, West Covina, Revision 1: December 9, 1994.
(Volumes 3 and 4)
6. The RWQCB approved the Prelimi
March 29, 1995.
Resp
_ This document provides a compilation of s;
comments received as partof the closure/p,
comments are italicized and grouped when
responses are numbered.
and Partial Final Plans in a letter dated
Organization
item -by -item detailed responses to
ire plan review process. For clarity,
e where the response is similar and CIWMB
Responses to City of West Covina LEA, Planning Department, and Public Works Department
comments are -'provided in pages 2 tlirc ugh 28. City of West Covina Planning and Public
Works Departments are dated Januaryx23 and January 30, 1995, respectively. These
comments were attached to the LEA's comments dated March 27, 1995.
Responses to public and City of West Covina comments are provided in pages 29 through 59.
These comments were transmitted to CIWNIB by letter dated February 20, 1995 from
Mr. Michael Miller, Environmental Services Director, City of West Covina.
DETAILED RESPONSE TO CITY OF N'tTEST COVLNA LEA/PLAINN. -ING
DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CD3BIE-TS
LEA Comments -.'Preliminary, Closure Plan
LEA Comment: Page 1-1 Section 1.1 LEA 's letter dated April 12, 1993 directed BKK
to submit Final Closure Plars not Preliminary Closure Plans.
Final ��'or'.ci^.g Draft- Novernbe: 199� Page -3
Resconses to Cizy of VV Ist Covina LEAP,a.~n;: _7 and SL'llding Decartmer.t Col~llnents
B;tt Lardtill Preli::zirary a.-:d Partial Final �los:::e,P�stc'tcs�:.-� Plans
Secr:on C:Csure Gad Postclosure � .:ntenance
P ns are to be przp�:red on an es roared closure date inci.�uir j
macimum extent of r� e larGtiil requiring closure. BKK has clearly
mentioned that this plan does not address the ultimate development,
therefore a determination needs to be made on the validity of this
document per the intent of the regulations.
If local land uses issues on the ultimate development of the site are still
unresolved, what planning purposes does this serve?
4-1 Section 4.1- Refer to comments above Page 1-1 1.1
Page 4-2 Section 4.1- The CIWMB did not request BKK to submit a
Partial Final Closure Plan. BKK proposed this plan as part of an
agreement with the LEA to comply with the Solid Waste Facilities
Permit Revision Notice and Order.
i
Page 4-4 Section 4.1- How accurate and valid is this document without
'the final grading plans established for the entire landfill?
CIWNM Response: Submittal of Final Plans for complete site closure is premature at this
(1) time until resolution of the litigation regarding the .final closure date. In
addition, postclosure land use development and local landscaping and
grading plan issues will also need to be resolved. However, closure and
PO
stclosure maintenance plans are required to be in the operating record
to meet the requirements of 14 CCR 17258.65.� Submittal of Partial
Final Plans for the ongoing final cover placement as portions of the site
reach final grade and Preliminary Plans for complete site closure meets
this requirement and provides'a basis for future resolution of issues
I the permitting process and final site closure.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the Partial Final and
Preliminary Plans authorizing or sanctioning site operations, grading,
and closure dates which are under dispute. This concern is unfounded.
Preliminary closure/postclosure plans solely address conformity with 14
CCR closure/postclosure regulations and cannot be implemented. The
Partial Final Plans specifically address placement of final cover as the
site progressively reaches final grades, pursuant to 14 CCR Section
17764(b)(1). BKK has been implementing these activities since 1992 as
prescribed in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit, Unclassified Use Permit
•
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses, to City of West Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
No. 71 Revision 5 Ai
Discharge Requireme
cover placement con(
Minimum Standards
environment. The Ps
configurations which
implementation of in
no expansion of use
Preliminary and Part
necessary to reflect r
changes until final cl
are submitted. This
18276.
To provide further
revisions to the Pre
Change first sentence
Change first
Page -4
ing and Building Department Comments
[osure.i?o stclo sure Plans
sdment (Items 4.E., I l.F., and 25), and Waste
(WDRs) Order No. 87-39 (Finding 22). Final
ted so far has been in compliance with State
protection of public health and safety and the
al Final Plans do not sanction or authorize site
11 not be graded or filled and only address
idual closure activities that involve negligible or
pond that previously existing. In addition, the
Final Plans must be amended or revised as
elution of ongoing disputes and any permit
ire/postclosure plans for complete site closure
uld be required pursuant to.14 CCR 18272 and
to the LEA's concerns, the following
Closure Plan will be requested:
page 1-1, paragraph 2 as follows: This Plan
of page 4-2, paragraph 1 as follows: At the
LEA Comment. Page 3-7 Section 3.214- The groundwater subdrain collection system
under the Class III disposal area liner does not mention where it drains
and if it is being monitored. The water should be sampled routinely for
assurance that it is not contaminated.
CIWMB Response: This comment refers to water quality aspects which, in accordance with
(2) AB 1220, is under the purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water
.Quality Control Board (R�VQCB). The RWQCB approved the
Preliminary and Partial Final Plans on March 29, 1995.
� i'al `� ork n2 Dra.--L- Vl� C
�j�,'�:i�UC': 1 199 _ .�.'`.- -:
Paz. -
Responses to -Ci of %`rest CO ira LEA Dla= ;-g a=:d Buildi-, Department Comments
BIV-K Landfill and Partial Final Closure,Postclosure Plans
moms of the date of c�ssai;Or of wastes?
CI`X-MB Response: It is premature to specie a schedule for completion of closure
(3) improvements until sub:rdt~al of Final Plans for complete site closure.
LEA Comment: Pave 4-4 Section 4.1- Storage for items not related to the BKK Landfill
operations only will require LEA and land use approval.
CIWMB Response: To address this comment CIWMMB staff will request that the following
(4) sentences be added to page 4-7 section 4.2 (Ancillary Storage Areas):
LEA Comment: Page 4-16 Section 4.7- Discontinuing of irrigation on established
vegetation should not be allowed until all gas recovery lines. have been
decommissioned and removed so as to- keep vegetation from becoming a
fire hazard to the gas recovery system.
CIWMB Response: BKK's August 31, 1995 response provides changes to this section to
11
(5) reflect the comment. These issues will warrant further consideration in
Final Plans for complete site closure.
LEA Comment: Page 4-22 Section 4.8- Landfill gas control system also has to comply
with a Stipulated Permanent Injunction with the CIWMB as a
responsible enforcement agency.
CIWMB Response:
(6)
LEA
LEA Comment:
comment has been noted and does not warrant further revisions.
ents- Preliminary Postelosure Maintenance Plan
Page 5-2 Section 5.2- Access and .internal roads and excess vegetative
growth should be included with the list of components requiring
inspection and maintenance.
Page 5-5 Section 5.2.2- Excess vegetation growth inhibiting inspections
and monitoring of final cover, gas recovery system and drainage systems
should also be inspected and maintained.
•
0
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Plw
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
t
Page 6-2 Section 6.1
maintenance?
CIW.NIB Response: To address these co
(7) changes:
Add the fo
Add the fo
Add the following to
In addition, CIWMB
maintenance cost est
Irrigation System be
language.
LEA Comment: Page 5-2- BKK.sho
all components with;
SCAQMD and RWC
OWNS Response: To address this coi
(8) following sentence
Page -6
zing and Building Department Comments
;losure,rPostclosure Plans
Does the costs include excess vegetation
CIWMB staff will request the following
et to page 5-2, paragraph 3:
to page 5-5,
1:
second sentence of Section 6.1.4:
will request that the preliminary postclosure
(Section 6.2.11) for Vegetative Cover and
:d if necessary to reflect this additional
d submit all inspection reports and summaries of
24 hours of the inspection -to the LEA, CIWMB,
:nt, CIWMB staff will request the following
added to page 5-2, paragraph 3:
LE.4 Comment: Page 6-1 Section 6.1 Cost estimates should include LEA 's costs for
inspections and monitoring.
CIWMB Response: Cost estimates for LEA inspections and monitoring are not required per
(9) 1.4 CCR Article 3.4 and are addressed for the Partial Final Plans as per
active site inspections. Reimbursement of LEA's costs should be
Final Paze
Resrcnses to Ci: % of est Covina LE.A.'Pla; nlnJ and Building Department Commants
KIK Land it Prelirninary and Partial Final ClosurerPostclosure Plans
approval process be:w2t.—i t:-e LEA and operator up on'sal site c':csure.
LEA Comment: Page 6-3 Section 6.1.10 Unclear as to what security measures will be
used. Page 6-6 Section 6. 2.7 It is still unclear as to what securir;
measures will be provided for the Class III Landfill.
CIWNIB Response: To address these co=, ents, CI`titilB staff will request Sections 6.1.10
(10) and 6.2.7 be deleted and replaced with a brief general description [ i.e.,
site watchman, perimeter fence, locked gates, etc.] of site security
measures.
LEA Comment: Page 6-5 Section 6.2.3- BKK should demonstrate why they assume
leachate extraction to be complete in 21 years.
CIWMB Response: This comment refers to primarily a water quality aspect which is under
(11) the purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans on March 29, 1995. However, it is reasonable to assume for the
purposes of Preliminary Plans that leachate production would
significantly decline several years after complete site closure.
Furthermore, Attachment 1 of the Partial Final Plans includes a water
balance analysis which supports this projection. No further response or
changes to address this comment are necessary at this time. x
LEA Comments- Partial Final Closure Plan
LEA Comment: Page 1-1 Section 1.1- The closure date on the lifespan of the site has
not been determined. Closure plans and cost estimates are based on
closure dates. How accurate are the cost estimates if there is no
certainty on a closure date? There should be.some determination by the
agencies' review as to what elements in this plan are directly related
and impacted on a definite closure date for planning purposes and. then
how these issues should be handled
Page 1-2 Section 1.2.- It is my understanding that there are no final
closure and postclosure maintenance plans submitted because of no date
of certainty for closure of the facility. Approval of Partial Final
Closure Plans has to show consistency with closure of the entire site
and in accordance with an approved Final Closure/Postclosure Plan.
(What is then the purpose of submittal and review of partial final closure
0
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA(Planni
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final C1
plans without
Page -8
and Building Department Comments
re/Postclosure Plans
to final closure plans?
It appears- that there is some variance from the regulations and BKK
needs to be more descriptive on their expectation with this variance. If
the CIWMB approves this variance, it should be made part of this
document as a matter of record with justifications provided.
There was initial agreement on Partial Final Closure Plans with the
LEA and CIWMB with regards to compliance with the 7th amended
Notice and Order but BKK refused to complete that process which
ultimately lead the LEA; to filing an injunction in L.A. Superior Court.
Page 1-4 Section 1. S- lHow can a Partial Final Closure Plan be in
compliance with Final Closure Plan Requirements when there is no
approved fnat Closure plan to use for'comparison?
Page 2-5 Section 2.2.4� How can a Partial Final Closure Plans be
approved if there is no established final grading plan? Common areas
used specifically for this plan are those areas disputed by the City and
Bkk for approval to fill with waste which is yet to be resolved.
CIWMB Resronee: See above CIWiVM response to LEA comment page 1-1 section 1.1,
(12) Preliminary Closure Plan. To further address this comment, CIWNM
staff will request the following change to page 1-2, paragraph 2:
The FCFPNT for the Class III area cannot be developed at .this time
because the lifespan of disposal operations has not been established. -le
iS aid LEA: staff
e
In addition, CIWNS staff will request that the following sentence be
added to the first paragraph of Section 1.5:
Final Draft- {'o�; er^ cer 2. 199: ; .: Page -9
ReSccnses to Ci7; of %Vest Covina LEATIa:..::iag and Building Department Cc:r n---ts
B,L{ Landfill and T; and Partial Fina! ClosurzTostclosure Plans
LE 4 Comme�r:: Pages 1-2 and 1-3 Section 1.2- Partial Final Postclosure .Maintenance
Plans cannot be considered consistent with Title 14, Sections 18265 and
1826j.3 because those sections refer to the requirements of a Final
Postclosure NMaintenance Plan not ap rtial:
last paragraph last word "it"
CIWtiIB Response: a separate regulatory requirement for Partial Final Postclosure
(13) Maintenance Plans and contents is not established. Therefore, use of the
requirements of a Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan as . a basis for
organization. of Partial Final Plans is appropriate.
While the typo noted could be changed to improve clarity, the basic
meaning of the sentence is reasonably understandable as is.
j.
LEA Comment: Page 1-3 Section 1.3- Drawings 1 & 2--should be more detailed
including limits and boundaries of waste disposal areas.
The Partial Final Closure Plans should also include in the legend
I
howing the proposed limits. and boundaries of waste disposal area of a
date certain and those other disposal areas still unresolved.;,..
CIWMB Response: CIWMB staff s position is that Drawings 1 & 2 are of suitable scale
(14) and detail and do not warrant further changes..
LEA Comment. Page 1-4 Section 1.4- Regulatory requirements should not. be
referenced in another document. This should be a. stand alone
CIWMB Response: To address this. comment, CIWMB staff will request that Section 1.3 of
(15) the Preliminary Closure Plans* be copied and inserted in Section 1.4 of
the Partial Final Closure Plans.
LEA Comment: Page 2-1 Section 2.1.3; Page 2-4 Section 2.1.9; Page 2-5 Section 2.2.2;
Page 2-4 Section 2.2.1- Topographic map should be part of this
document and not referenced in another document.
•
i
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial. Final
Page -10
ung and Building Department Comments
;losure, Postclosure Plans
Page 2-4 Section 2.1.9- Limits of waste placement plans should be a
part of this document not referenced in another document. This should
be a separate stand alone document.
CIWNIB Response: Referencing of documents in closure and postclosure maintenance plans
(16) can improve plan organization and clarity and is not precluded by 14
CCR Article 3.4. The items listed in the above comments are
appropriately referenced and it is not necessary to include them
separately with the Partial Final Plans.
LEA Comment: Page 2-4 Section 2.1.8- Acreage of Class III disposal area should
include the potential acreage also.
Page 2-4 Existing and potential limits of waste should correspond to the
Class III waste disposal acreage.
CIWMB- Response: Potential limits__of_the Class III area are included in the Preliminary
(17) Plans and it is not necessary to include them in the Partial Final Plans.
To further address this comment, CIWNIB staff will request that:'.c€1
before inserted before Site Acreage in the section title.
LEA Comment: Page 3-1 Partial Final Closure Plans are to be submitted to agencies
for their approval prior to the implementation of closure activities.
BKK has stated here; that they have implemented closure improvements
in 1992, 1993, and I994 on area A drawings 1 and 2. They are late in
submitting partial final closure plans for our rey:ew when all the work
has already been completed. Why weren't the agencies notified of this?
It appears that BKK: has circumvented the regulations here. 1 question
now the credibility, of their work without agency oversight.
An independent third party should be hired by the CIWMB and financed
by BKK to review and validate all work completed to date prior to any
approvals.
It makes it awfully Jiff cult to incorporate any additional requirements
when BKK has completed everything. What happens if the final cover
design has more stringent requirements such as additional clay and
vegetative layers? TVill BKJ, be required to redo the work they have
completed?
iVCC,:.mz Dra' N; ;�:e:n�.zr �. i`79 5 -11
R-sronses to Ci^, of Cev...i LF.kP —:d ouilding Deeartrinent Cor:urents
3 L{ Lam- d±;ll o_�li, �� ; and P=;al Final C'.os'ze;Postclosure Plans
CItiWMB Response`.
(ls)
Cv ti4.?e:eQ t :-i o. •ems rr �areas
�.. CQ'• S':S� s duce in �rtu
.ajerc,, revie'.v of 2'� 's iverk is after the fact.
The comment questions the appropriateness of accepting final co-,-er
work that was completed prior to submittal of the Partial Final Plans.
While approval of Partial Final Plans prior to completing the work is
preferred, the approach presented in the Partial Final Plans is reasonable
given the site specific situation.
The BKK Partial Final Plans specifically address placement of final
cover as the site. progressively reaches final grades. The BKK Landfill
has been implementing these activities since 1992 as prescribed in the
Solid Waste Facilities Permit, Unclassified Use Permit No. 71 Revision
5 Amendment (Items 4.E., I I.F., and 25), and Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 87-39 (Finding 22). Final cover
placement as the landfill reaches final grades is clearly of environmental
benefit given that the minimum standard for intermediate cover provides
substantially less containment. Intermediate cover could be placed
equivalent to final cover standards without violating 14 CCR minimum
standards. However, sanctioning as final cover through the Partial
Closure Plan review and approval- process ensures that the cover is
constructed to the highest possible standards promptly as the site is
filled and does not require reconstruction upon complete site closure.
Note that CIWMB staff have reviewed construction quality assurance
I
;(,CQA) test data prepared by BKK's CQA contractor and have
determined this information is sufficient to address compliance,":Mth 14
CCR Sections 17773 and 17774'.' Reconstruction of work completed so
far is not required. An independent third party hired by the CIWMB to
�eview and validate all work completed to date is therefore not
necessary. In addition, BKK's final cover design substantially exceeds
the containment afforded by the minimum prescriptive standard (3'
minimum monolithic barrier/vegetative layer with permeability _<1 x 10,6
cm/sec as compared. with the minimum prescriptive standard of 1'
vegetative layer permeability unspecified overlying 1' barrier layer with
permeability 51 x 10,6 cm/sec). A more stringent design is not
necessary at this time but may be incorporated for complete site closure
depending on the final postclosure land use.
o further address the LEA's comments, CIWMB staff will request that
•
•
Final Workin' Draft- November 2, 1995 Page -12
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Plarning and Building Department Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure /Postclosure Plans
the following sentence', be added to paragraph 2 of Section 3 :
LEA Comment: Page.4-1 Section 4.1.2- No reference should be made to another
document to address security. Information should be provided in this
document for review. Recommend signs be posted in English, Spanish,
and Filipino.
Page 4-3 Section 4.2.2; Page 4-3 Section 4.3.1- Reference to PCPPMP
or other documents is[, not acceptable.
OWNS Response: To address this comment, CIWIvIB staff will request that the referenced
(19) information from the 1Preliminary Closure Plans be copied and inserted
into the appropriate sections of the Partial Final Closure Plans (Sections
4.1.2 and 4.2.2:
LEA Comment: Page 4-8 Section 4.41 1- Final grades must also be in compliance and
consistent with local � Tanning and zoning requirements and should be so
noted in this section j'with all other regulatory requirements noted.
CIWINS Response:
(24)
Page 4-11 Section 4.'6.1- Final Drainage should include compliance
with local planning and zoning.
Page 4-14 Section 4j9.1- Final Drainage should include compliance
with local planning and zoning for proposed vegetation:
BKK needs to be more descriptive as to what "natural" landscape area
that will blend with the surrounding hillsides. The surrounding hillsides
have oak and walnut trees. Will the landfill have the same?
Local planning and
vegetation,- final sit
which cannot be cc
regarding the final
maintenance plans
response concernin
prepared. by the Ci�
To further address
oning requirements for grading, drainage,
landscaping, and postclosure land use are issues
Lpletely resolved until resolution of the litigation
osure date and submittal of closure and postclosure
,r complete site closure. A separate more detailed
these issues Mll be prepared to address comments
of VVest Covina Planning Director.
is comment, CIWMB staff will request that the
Fi.^.a1 Worn,.a Drat- N em'Cer ,. 199; Page -13
Res; c�szs to Cit-,- of Covina LE.A.=d Buildi::, Decarinent Corr=ents
BKK Larnd iil Pre1i::�inar� and Partial Final C os::.,Postclosure Plans
r
As a ,^a.-a-e .=g-y^^Sec—on .9.1:
-:es carrot. bedrsed at<'th throe T'Reae:`isse
LEA Comment: Page 5-7 Section 5.4.2; Page 5-8 Section 5.5.2- Information referenced
in other documents should not be referenced and provided in this
documentation review.
CIWNMB Response: To address this comment, CIWi M staff will request that the referenced
(21) information from the Preliminary Closure Plans be copied and inserted
into the appropriate sections of the Partial Final Closure Plans (Sections
514.2 and 5.5.2).
LEA Comment: Page 6-1 Section 6.1- Recording of the closed site shall also be filed
with the recorder of the County.
CIWMB Response: Filing with the County recorder is required upon complete site closure
(22) pursuant to 14 CCR 17787 and is not required for partial final
closure/postclosure maintenance plans. Therefore, changes are
LEA Comment: Pagel Section 6.2- Certification of consistency with partial closure
is not acceptable. BKK shall certify that closure improvements are
consistent with the. approved specifications in an approved final plan.
CIW M Response:
(23)
LEA Comment'
CIWMB Response:
(24)
address this comment, CIWMB .staff will request the following
X U'•T.T' x vKviN4C: •'.•:.;:m5$.;:C!y
tence be added to Page 6-1 Section 6.2: 'see_cEcatQ
8-1 Section 8.1- Reference of closure -estimates to other
Tents is unacceptable, it should be in this document.
age 8-2 Section 8.2- Information referenced in other documents
Mould not be referenced and provided in this documentation review.
'o address this comment, CIWMB staff will request that the referenced
:ost tables and certificate of insurance from the Preliminary Closure
Tans be copied and inserted into the appropriate sections of the Partial
inal Closure Plans (Sections 8.1 and 8.2).
• f •
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995 Page -14
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Planning and Building Department Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
LEA Comment: Page 8-1 Section 8.1- Cost estimates should be provided to close the
entire landfill in accordance with an approved Final Closure Plan.
BKK admits that the full cost estimates have not been provided for the
entire landfill. Therefore the cost estimates should be deemed
inadequate and unacceptable. Cost estimates should also include costs
for LEA's inspections Viand monitoring.
CIWMB. Response: Closure/postclosure cost estimates for the entire landfill are contained in
(25) the Preliminary Plans ;and are not necessary for the Partial Final Plans.
The cost estimates meet 14 CCR Article 3.4 requirements. Cost
estimates for LEA inspections and monitoring are not required per 14
CCR Article 3.4 and are addressed for the Partial Final Plans as per
active site inspections; Reimbursement of LEA's costs should be
negotiated separate from the closure/postclosure plan review and
approval process between the LEA and operator upon final site closure.
In further response to the LEA's concerns about BKK's
closure/postclosure cost estimates, CIWMB staff have provided further
analysis to show thatBKK's cost estimates are reasonable as compared
with other municipal solid waste landfills in California:
BKK- $71,500. ,r acre fill area (Class III only)
Puente Hills Landfill- $40,000 per acre fill area
Average 47 Landfills in California- $56,000 per acre fill area
BKK- $1,800 per acre fill area per year
Puente Hills Landfill- $1,100 per acre fill area per year
LEA Comments- Partial Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan
LEA Comments: Page 1-1 Section 1.1- Refer to Partial Final Closure Plan (PFCP)
comments Section I JI.
Page 1-2 and 1-3 Section 1.2- Refer to PFCP comments Section 1.2
Page 1-3 Section 1.3- Refer to PFCP comments Section 1. 2
Page 1-4 Sections L 4 & 1.5- Refer to PFCP comments Sections
1.4 & 1.5.
Final Wor inz Dm No mfie ,,• t995 '.{ Pas- 15
Resconsas to C: of :� est Coy; inl Lc A, P'.a .�:. and E :; d: � Decsnire :t Corrr:�e-I s
BK.K Landfill P:elimirar., and Partial -Final Cios�:re;Posulos� Piazs
lCI R=s :.. c;, a n,; e CIlv113 -_;-,��se k1 ? =s 0^s` =7 -w - P3--.ial Liral
t_L) Cilostie Plan LEAcc-� e^ts pa`e ! '. section 1.1, pa_� 1-2 section 1.2-
pat 1-3. section 1.2; ca•Je 1-4, section 1.4; and page 1-11., section 1.5.
T'o rarther address these con. eats, CI%W;NL staff will request the
following change to pale 1-2, paragraph 2:
FCFP.'vIP for the Class III area cannot be developed at this time
use the lifespan of disposal operations has not been established. le
,
LEA Comment: Page 2-1 Section 2.2- Referencing information to other documents is not
acceptable.
OWNS Response: Referencing of documents in closure and postclosure maintenance plans
(27) can improve plan organization and clarity and is not precluded by
14 CCR Article 3.4. The items listed in the above comments are
appropriately referenced and it is not necessary to include them
separately with the Partial Final Plans.
LEA Comment: Page 3-1 Section 3.1- Refer to PFCP comments Section 6.1
3-1 Section 3.2- Refer to PFCP comments Section 6.2
CIWMB Response: Filing with the County recorder is required upon complete site closure
(28) pursuant to 14 CCR 17787 and is not required for partial final
closure/postclosure maintenance plans. Therefore, changes are
unnecessary. Regulatory certification requirements (14 CCR 18275) are
I
eflected in the section as written. Therefore, changes are unnecessary.
LEA Comment: 1Page 5-9 Section 5.5.2- Title 14, Section 17783 is not a South Coast
Air Quality requirement, therefore landfill gas collection and control
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEzk,'Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
shall be in conforma;
Quality requirements
Page -16
ling and Building Department Comments
'I osure.T o stclo sure Plans
with Title 14 Section 17783 in addition to Air
i the Stipulated Permanent Injunction (SPI).
CIWTV1B Response: To address this comment, the following revision to the first sentence of
(29) page 5-9, section 5.5.2 will be requested:
Appropriate landfill gas collection and control that conforms to
SCAQMD..azd4 .SCR :(LEA �d C requirements .. .
LEA Comment: Page 5-10 Section 5.5.3- Referencing of information to other
documents is not acceptable. Detailed information on the procedures
and design of gas recovery installation system within the asbestos fill
should be described here. BKK should detail how wells will be drilled
without rupturing any, asbestos bags.
CIWNM Comment: Referencing of documents in closure and postclosure maintenance plans
(30) can improve plan organization and clarity and is not precluded by
14 CCR Article 3.4. The items listed in the above comments are
appropriately referenced and it is not necessary to include them
separately with the Partial Final Plans.
To address. the issue �of asbestos and gas system drilling activities,
CIWMB staff will request that gas system drilling procedures for
avoiding asbestos h-.z ands be described and either be included in the
section or referenced as an appendix.
LEA Comment: Pagt 5-10 Section 5�5.6- Gas collection and control system
decommissioning should not only be approved by SCAQMD but also
CIWMB and the LEi
CIW N1B Comment: To address this comment, the following revision to the first sentence of
(31) page 5-10, section 5�.5.6 Aill be requested:
The landfill gas collection and control system will operate through the
postclosure maintenance period or until the operator receives written
authorization from the 'to discontinue
operations.
LEA Comment: Page 6-1 Section 6.11- li'77cre is the straw mulch coming from and is it
appropriate for repair rather than the required soil mix? Repair of
ponded areas that have settled adversely should be tested for adequate
k
Final Working Draft- N61.emnber 2. 1995 ;"' Page -17
Resconses to Ci^r of %Vest Covina LEA 3r:d Buildin; Deparment Comments
B,,,�k Landnil Prelimina'n- and Partial Final Clcsu:e,`Postclosure Plans
� 1rG: CC'%2r 2SD�CIG11,'1 lilt C!�: CGD.
CIWtiIB Response: CIIZti1B staff contend t,�at the Partial Final Plans adequately address
partial final cover repair and no changes are necessary to address this
comment.
LEA Comment: Page 6-2 Section 6-1- CITUB, LEA and RWQCB should be informed
within 24 hours of any emergency on major type of corrective action
needed. All final cover maintenance records should be kept on site for.
at least 2-3 years.
Results of BKK's final cover inspection and summary of maintenance
should be sent to CIW.,LiB, LEA and RWOCB-LA on routine basis within
24 hours following the inspection.
6-2 Section 6.2- Information referred to other documents is not
cable. Results of all grading inspections should be sent to
1B, LEA, and RWQCB within 24 hours of the inspection.
Page 6-3 Section 6.3- Results of all drainage inspections and summary's
should be sent to CIWjLIB, LEA and RWQCB within 24 hours of the
inspection.
6-3 Section 6.5 All inspection results and summary of
ctenance records should be sent to CIWMB, LEA, RWQCB and
QMD within 24 hours of completion.
ge 6-4 Section .6.6 Results of inspections and summary reports shall
sent to CIWMB, LEA,- RWQCB within 24 hours of inspection.
CIWMB Response: To address this comment, CIWMB staff will request the following
(33) revision:
the following sentence to page 6-2, section 6-2, paragraph 2:
11
C�
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEAIPla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
LEA Comment.
To further address thi
referenced informatio
5.2.2 and 5.2.4) be ci
Partial Final Postclos
of the Partial Final P
Preliminary Postclosi
Page 6-3 Section 6.4
than 80% vegetative
than 25%.
Detailed maintenar,
mowing or cutting
accessibility for ins
gas collection syste
cover gas recovery
Excess vegetation
you cannot access
All results of veg
should be sent to
Page -18
ling and Building Department Comments
:losure,'Postclosure Plans
comment, CIWMB staff will request that the
from the Preliminary Postclosure Plans (Sections
ied and inserted into Sections 6.2 and 6.7 of the
e Plans and that Section 6.4 reference Section 6.2
tclosure Plans rather than Section 5.2.2 of the
: Plans.
If an area larger than 500 square feet has less
over will be reseeded should be changed to less
program and schedule should be implemented on
over growth excess vegetation that may hinder
:lions and monitoring of the final cover and the
Excess vegetation should not be allowed to
tes. and drainage lines for visual inspections.
uld also not be allowed to become so dense that
area for inspection.
inspections and summary's of maintenance
B, LEA, RWQCB and SCAQMD.
Page 6-4 Section 6.7- BKK shall be more descriptive on what they mean F,..
by regular inspection,. What is the frequency? Inspection should include
keeping clearance of 2-3 ft. of excess vegetation as required by the local
Fire Department. Results of inspections and summary reports should be
sent to CIWMB, LEA, SCAQMD within 24 hours of inspection.
OWNS Response: BKK's August 31, 1I995 response to comments which includes revisions
(34) to Section 6.4 provides adequate response to the vegetative cover issue.
Regarding inspectio
Partial. Final Postcl(
the Preliminary Pos
to be revised to ref
to LEA comment P
Maintenance Plans)
and maintenance of excess vegetation gro-,& th,
ire Maintenance Plans reference Sections 5.2 of
losure Maintenance Plans, which A ill be requested
:t LEA comments (see above CI%',!,-4B Response n7
;e 5-2 Section 5.2- Preliminary Postclosu.re
i
p
I
Final «'or'.cin? Draft- Niovern"er =. 1995 Page -19
espor.s: s to City of West Covina LF.-�.'P1a:-_.: and Building ID art.:iert Comments
B:LK Lardliil Preliminary and Partial Final Closur-.:Postclosure Plans
desc_.,`.a :.. ace^uate detail for a^c.ova1 c) p_`1;rm, -,..
Partial Final Fin als. :io,xever, they will war-. -ant t ` er detail as
of Final Closure and Postclosure Niaintenarce Plans for complete
closure.
LEA Comment: Page 7-1 Section 7.1- Cost estimates - Refer to PFCP comments Page
8 1 Section 8.1.
ge 7-1 Section 7.2- Financial responsibility information referenced
other documents is not acceptable. Information should be in this
,nancial responsibility estimates should be derived from an approved
Vial closure plan which doesn't exist.
C1WMB Response: To address this comment, CIWINM staff will request that the referenced
(35) . cost tables and certificate of insurance from the Preliminary Postclosure
Plans be copied and inserted into the ' appropriate sections of the Partial
Final Postclosure Plans.
See also above CIWMB response to LEA comment page 8-1 Section
8.1, Partial Final Closure Plan.
LEA Comment: Page 8-1 Section 8- Reference of information to other documents is
unacceptable. The information should be maintained in this document.
CIV8M Response: To address this comment, CIWMB staff will request that the referenced
(36) information from the Preliminary Postclosure Plans be copied and
inserted into the Partial Final Postclosure Plans.
LEA Comments Emergency Response.Plan
LEA Comment: Page 9-1 Section 9- Emergency Response Plan should be reviewed and
approved by local Fire, Police, and Office of Emergency Services (OES)
7achment 9, Page 4, Section C. L b. - In an emergency all appropriate
,encies shall be notified immediately and it should be their decision to
spond and help if needed. Attachment 9, Page S, Section C.I.d-
TSC should be contacted immediately for response to an incident that
ay require clean-up not after the area has been cleaned -up.
0
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
F�
Page -20
ing and Building Department Comments
losure/Postclosure Plans
Attachment 9, Page 7, ISection C.10.- Incident reports should be sent to
CIWMB, LEA, SCAOMD, DTSC and RWOCB.
Attachment 9, Page 2411 Section XI D.3. Gas turbine and steam plant
should not be a separate emergency plan referenced in another
appendix but part of this plan submitted by BKK Attachment 9 Page
24 Section XI D.4. There should be no on -site fires if excess vegetation
growth is maintained and properly irrigated.
Attachment 9 Page 29, Section XI F.3.- All leachate treatment plant
spills shall require agency s immediate notification and coordination.
CIVIMB Response: The Emergency Response Plan is adequate for approval of Partial Final
(37) Plans but should be updated as necessary and incorporated as a revision
or amendment to the Preliminary and Partial Final Plans, and
incorporated in Final Plans for complete site closure. It may be helpful
to solicit input from local fire, police and OES on the Emergency
Reponse Plan but-specific approval by these agencies is not required.
See CIWMB Response #15 to above LEA comment Page 1-4 Section
1.4 Partial Final Closure Plans regarding referencing.
To address comments regarding reporting, CIWMB staff will request
that the followin.z sentences be added to Page 9-1 Section 9:
In addition CIWMB; staff will also request that the gas. turbine and
steam plant Emergency Response Plan be added to Attachment 9 and
that updated names and telephone numbers be provided as necessary.
Comments from Planning and Public NN orks Departments-
Preliminan! Closure and Postclosure 'Maintenance Plan
Planning Comment: Page I-]- The last two sentences on this plan need to be revised
to reflect that the only approved MDP is the 1974 MDP. The
referenced "1993 1116P" was rejected by the City. BKK is in violation
of the 1974 MDP and any anticipated revisions on BKK's part would be
to the approved 19,74 MDP.
c,; al Wor!cirg Dra:-- November ?. 1995 Page "1
1Zescon8es to City of %Vst Covina LEA`Pla.^.::r:? and Building Deparnn:rt Comments
Bak Landfill Preliminar''y and Partial Final Closu:e,Postclosure Plans
p 'D ;-9 �� �`' �. - T .� .:� •Y / � is �n� nr L ni+nr�7i•o'-i 1!D!D TI!,
reference to the 1199' si:ou.'d �e removed as it f" s ro
for use as it was rejec:ed and never approved.
CI`&ti1B Respcnse: The Preliminary Plans acknowledge that the N DP is subject to
(;8) resolution of ongoing issues of dispute between the City of West Covina
and BKK. These issues mainly include final closure date, postclosure
land use, local landscaping, and grading. The Preliminary Plans must
be amended or revised to reflect resolution of these issues until Final
Plans for complete site closure are submitted. This would be required
pursuant to 14 CCR 18272 and 18276. Submittal of Final Plans for
complete site closure is premature at this time until resolution of these
issues (See above CIWNIB Response #1 to LEA comment Page 1-1
Preliminary Plans).
Planning Comment: Page 1-2 Section 1.2.1 - Azusa Avenue is not designated as
StateHighway 39 south of the San Bernardino Freeway. This reference
must be deleted.
CIWlM Response: The information presented sufficiently allows for. location of the site and
r ' (39) therefore does not warrant revision.
Planning Comment: Page 1-3 Section 1.2.2 - The third bullet item must be revised to state
that the land to the north and northeast has entitlements for. the
construction of townhomes to the north and 291 homes =to the northeast,
some of which are under construction.
section should also identify how close the disposal area is to
zed and approved residences, not just existing homes as future
ences and their occupants must be considered
CIWMB Response: To address this comment, CIWMB staff will request the following
(40) additional bullet item to Section 1.2.2:
- •.� ..l'.lJ�Y v....�7i.t••� •!!�:!+.K,+.h:>:;\r: •!!^.w�:'•.,/,.!;:C!S.h,`,T.•;h�\;.}\L•Yn:!..•p•}]ni!H::!S�:;M:!�.::�';Y,.:�.M'.;try:!,}?::•:;�:!y::..ham;:!::}!':{?::ti
Mm
tryils€t3tt;�zt:::alcv�?ntzis>>Eti..:........
... r.r.. ;>:.h:::::>::;:
artheati so of which are .unduerton_
.:..n...1 n..v :.vrh.ri:.v •.:'tiL:{:::: i!:!�i:•:Liii. i:.+�:::.4:
•:rvr.viiY.•.•x:::•.tiL:vJ:rv::J:.v:::::Mv::.vv... r......... ... r. �. ....
The description of current land uses is adequate for the purposes of
;Preliminary Plans but will warrant revision to reflect these comments
for permitting purposes (RDSI) and Final Plans for complete site
0
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
Page -22
ing and Building Department Comments
losure/?ostctosure PIans
closure. The Preliminary Plans must be amended . or revised to reflect
finalization land use description for the RDSI. This would be required
pursuant to 14 CCR 18272 and 18276.
Planning Comment: Page 1-4- The MDP was approved on Nov. 12, 1974, not 1976.
Reference to the "1993!MDP" should be deleted as it. has been rejected
by the City and has never been approved.
r
Page 1-5- Change the 19.74 MDP approval from 1976 to 1974.
Page 1-6 The informs
.Tune 13,. 1979 rather
12186 - The permit
this was for a 100-
10188 - The "Stipulai
be referred to as the
Page 1-7 Insert the
realign the entrance
1-8 Insert the fol
11191 RWQCB
shredder wastes.
1 have shows that the SWFP was issued on
4179.
ication to the RWQCB should reference that
area.
Preliminary Injunction" should
ipulated Permanent Injunction. "
1 City approval of the revision to the UUP to
:rd and scale house.
items:
ed permit revision for lisposal of treated auto
3192 - LEA issued a. IN & 0 regarding flooding from the site.
12192 - City. and BKX execute a Standstill Agreement to stop grading of
outward facing slopes per the UUP.
6193 - The City Council orders BKK to submit a revised MDP.
1195 - BKK submits a revised RDSI.
1195 - City files Notice of Violation for numerous UUP provisions.
CIWMB Response: To address these comments, CMIMB staff will request that Section
(41) 1.3.1 be deleted.
Final �,�+�'�r�:1r �r� �1�� er:":1=Ci ,. 1y9� Pave -23
J.
Rescorses to C.:•- of est Covina LE �FIr^n a. �' Building Deg :.-tment Cornrzents
BitiK Landfill Preliminari and Partial Final Clos i V`ostclosure Plans
r D. ��. I_�_ C��• 1. 7 +�r?^.�� :!� �_..... '�c� n�r>++.s �.S
Rev. 3 (.4me-:;Imes:).
CI%ti�13 Response: To address these cor -n- eats, CIW-' LB staff will request that
(42) nerid�ne^t? be inserted a :er Rev. 5 in the second sentence of
Section 1.3.6.
Planning Comment: Page 1-10- Fifth paragraph - Daily cover should be referenced as 1
inches of "compacted" soil cover.
Page 1-11- This section should include a description of the various
approved special wastes that are disposed of at the landfill; ASTV, TSS,
etc.
Page 2-18- Artificial Fill- On what basis can it be determined that
undocumented fills are competent? ' .
CIiNMB Response: Section 1.4 is not intended to be a detailed description of landfill
(43) operations and is sufficiently detailed for acceptance. Artificial fills
described do not warrant specific detailed evaluation of slope and
r foundation stability at this time. Slope and- foundation stability of the
site will be evaluated in further detail.as part of Final Plans for
complete site closure.
Planning Comment: Page 3-2- Section 3.1.1 -Need to include the proposed use of the. LTP
for treatment of effluent from the proposed methanol production facility.
Page 4-24- The discussion of the leachate treatment plant needs to
address the potential treatment of methanol plant effluent.
CIWMB Response: Detailed discussion of the proposed methanol production facility is
(44) premature until the facility is approval.
Planning Comment: Page 4-3- This table assumes use of ADC starting in January of 1995.
There is no approved ADC for the site and, thus, estimates for use of
ADC should be deleted.
CIWMB Response: The Table shows final capacity scenarios with ADC and without ADC.
(45) ADC use could still be proposed and therefore the Table is acceptable.
•
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of Vest Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary. and Partial Final
Planning Comment: . Page 4-7- No a
phase of power
CIW IB Response: The bullet states "
(46) therefore does not
Planning Comment: Page 4-12- Shouldn't
excavated slopes in a,
Page -24
ing and Building Department Comments
losure,-Postclosure Plans
have been requested or approved for the third
on that is referenced herein.
,ial Third Phase of Power Generation" and
revision.
final Grading section discuss the stability of
,on to the discussion of landfill slopes?
OWNS Response: Stability of excavated slopes should be addressed as part of landfill
(47) operations and incorporated into Final Plans for complete site closure.
Submittal of Final Plans for complete site closure is premature at this
time until resolution of ongoing issues of dispute (See above CIWMB
Response #1 to LEA comment Page 1-1 Preliminary Plans)
Planning Comment: Page 4-18- The
unattractive aP1
meet the reauir,
appearance of the
The site should be c
root drains in order
appearance. The cL
unacceptable.
,eed mixtures are unacceptable due to their
e and flammability. A mixture that continues to
of site maintenance while also improving the
and reduced fire fuel load is needed.
figured with tree berms or wells with appropriate
provide variation and a more attractive
nt concept of using only ground cover is
Page 5-5 Section 5.2.2 - Won't the irrigation system be needed beyond
the S. to 10 year periodreferenced in or ,,., to maintain proper soil
moisture content and landscape coverage in dry years
CIWMB Response: BKK's August 31, 1995 response provides changes to Section 4.7 to
(48) address comments regarding hydroseed mixtures and vegetation
maintenance for fire icontrol. Additional revisions to address these
comments will be requested as described in the CI XI'\ B Response 11-7 to
LEA comment Page 5-2 Section 5.2. These issues Aill be further'
addressed in Final PI -,.s for complete site closure.
Postclosure land use development and local landscaping and grading
plan issues will need to be resolved and incorporated into Final Plans
for complete site closure. Submittal of Final Plans for complete site
closure is premature at this time until resolution of issues (See above
CIVv'MB Response 1 to LEA comment Page 1-1 Preliminary Plans).
Final Working Draft- Meer ber 2. 199: Pace -25
Rescorses to Citti of %W st Covina LL.k Planninga and Building Depar=nert Ccrn..ments
Bltit La;:`fi! P:e'.::.^.i a::d Partia! Final C!cs=.tPostclosu Plans
P1-71e 'Case Mac: :'Sed is d aed 19,?1 and fails to s^o'.b' Y:ew s7?ers
u."acer., to rie s :- le:a:: r. Co e.Xist n; ar", pro?osa:i s�no e Am:
homes & townromes or. all sides of the landl;ll. This is very misleading
to use a 14-year old case map. Asusa Avenue is misramzed south of the
site (Pass & Covina Road) & the Amar Road extension east of AVOaales
Street is not shown. This map needs to show existing eondirons'
Plan 2- This map does not show both turbine generator buildings and
the maintenance building. The North Area step out shown violates the
UUP and MDP. This plan should use the same topographic base map
1992 as the other plans.
i
CIWMB Response: The Plan 1 base map is adequate for the purposes of Preliminary Plans
(49) but will warrant revision to reflect these comments for permitting
purposes (RDSI) and Final Plans for complete site closure. The
Preliminary Plans must be amended or revised to reflect finalization of
final maps for the RDSI. This would be required pursuant to 14 CCR
18272 and 18276. CIWMB staff will request that the Plan 2 base map
be revised to include turbine generator buildings and maintenance
building.
r .
The next CIWMB response addresses comments regarding the North
Area step out area.
Planning Comment: Plan 3- The North Area step out shown violates the UUP and the MDP.
What is the "Ancillary Storage Area" on the west sided of the site and
the southerly ridge line used for? The water reservoir shown at the
northeast corner of the site requires approval of a revision to the MDP;
The location of the reservoir will need to be screened from views with
berming and/or landscaping. As shown,, the reservoir location will
require extensive grading. Who will own this reservoir and what will it
be used for?
1 4- The grading shown at the southwest corner, of the site is not
'of the approved MDP and will violate the UUP provision
'ecting outward facing slopes unless a UUP revision is approved
/or a revised MDP is approved. The North Area step out shown
ates the UUP and MDP. The plan violates the UUP provision for
ding outward facing slopes on the north ridge line and also violates
Standstill Agreement between BKK and the City. A new
7ufactured slope would also have to be created along the north ridge
i
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Pla
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
Page -26
iing and Building Department Comments
'losure;Postclosure Plans
line under the grading scheme that is shown which would have to extend
off -site. This is not shown nor are the effects of such grading or the
maintenance of this slope addressed in these documents. The
finaUultimate cut slopes on the west and north side of the landfill exceed
the maximum 2:1 slope limit in the UUP.
Plan 6- The North Area step out shown on the plan violates the UUP
and the MDP.
Plan 12- The plan fails to show the slope created along the north ridge
line and drainage that would occur from its creation.
Plan 16 Section 2125 show that the ultimate cut slope to the west of the
landfill will exceed thIe maximum slope provision in the UUP of 2:1.
Public Works The discussion of pages 4-12 through 4-17 does not mention that the
Comments: grading and drainage will comply with City and County requirements.
The final grading plan must be submitted for City checking and
approval. The final drainage plan (storm drains) must be submitted for
City and County checking. and approvals. The site hydrology must be
submitted for City and County checking and verification
,'Ian No. 4 is lacking in significant details and is, at best, a
"conceptual" plan. Even at that, it does not comply with the City's
Grading Ordinance. I The discussion in 4.7 does not conform to the
City's Grading Ordinance.
CIW'NS Response: The Preliminary Plans acknowledge that the MDP is subject to
(50) resolution of ongoing issues of dispute between the City of West Covina
and BKK. These issues mainly include final closure date, postclosure
land use, local landscaping, and grading but also includes the North Step
out Area. The Preliminary and Partial Final -Plans must be amended or
revised to reflect resolution of these .issues until Final Plans for
complete site close I are submitted. This would be required pursuant to
14 CCR 18272 andl 18276. Submittal of Tinal Plans for complete site
closure is premature at this time until resolution of these issues (See
above CIWMB response to LEA comment page 1-1 Prelimina.-N• Plans).
The issue of maximum slopes is addressed in CI%%,'MB Response- f54 to
Planning comment !Page 2-5 Section 2.2.2, Partial Final Closure Plan.
Final %Vorl<ing Draft-'N<
P,�-SocnSds to C.:ti of W
Bait Land.il L':.''.ilmll:,.
>vember 2, 1995 Page -27
:st Covina LE.�'Fta. r.J. Building Department Cor.+ ents
a:.d Parial Final C:cs-Z Postclosure Plans
Comments from Planning and Public jjVarks Departments- Partial Final Closure Plan
Flaming Ccm.: pert: Page 1-3- The reference to'he 1993 .VIDP should oe deleted as it has
beeen rejected and never ap?roved. P-hich RDSI was used for
preparation of this plan? Is it the latest RDSI submitted in January
which is after the date of this plan's preparation?
Drawing
1- This plan violates the UUP provisions related to grading of
outward facing slopes on the north ridge line and along the southwest
corner of the site. It also violates the approved MDP for the same
areas. The reference on the plan to the "1993 LIMP" should be deleted
as it has no legal basis and was rejected by the City.
CIWMB Response:
i
This comment is addressed in above CIVAI M Response #38 to Planning
(51)
comment Page 1-1 of the Preliminary Plans.
Planning Comment:
Page 2-2- Azusa Avenue is not designated as State Highway 39 south of
the San Bernardino Freeway.
CIWMB Response:
The information presented sufficiently allows for location of the site and.
_
(52)
ttlerefore does not warrant revision.
Planning Comment:
Page 2-3 Section 2.1.5- While some of the land to the north and
northeast of the landfill is undeveloped, it is all approved for. the
construction of multiple family and single-family residential units.
Section 2.1.6 - This section should -discuss planned and approved
,development around the landfill.
CIWMB Response:
This comment is addressed in the above CIWMB Response #40 to
(53)
Planning comment Page 1-3 Section 1.2.2 of the Preliminary Plans.
Planning Comment:
Page 2-5 Section 2.2.2 - The completed excavation slopes cannot exceed
amaximum of 2:1.
CIWMB Response:
The issue of'maximum slopes for excavations has been brought up in
(54)
several Planning and Public Works Department comments. The UUP
(Amendment) indicates ultimate slopes to be constructed in accordance
with the City Grading Ordinance to a maximum slope of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) (Sections 4. EA and 24.D.). All waste fill slopes
meet the maximum criteria of 2:1. However, the Partial Final Plans
•
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995 I Page -28
Responses to City of West Covina LEA/Planning and Building Department Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
conf= (page 2-5 section 2.2.2 and Plan 3) that existing excavations in
certain borrow areas have slopes up to 1.5:1.
Based on review of City Drainage and Grading Ordinance (Article 1,
Ord. No. 1938, § 2 adopted June 7, 1994), CIV;NB staff see no explicit
preclusion of cut slopes steeper than 2:1. The City Drainage and
Grading Ordinance incorporates by reference portions of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC)I which can provide more detailed information to
clarify appropriate cut slope requirements. The 1994 UBC states the
following under Section 3312- Cuts:
Section 3312.2 Slope. "The slope of cut surfaces shall be no
steeper than is safe for the intended use and shall be no steeper
than 1 unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50% slope) unless the
permittee furriishes a soils engineering ' or an engineering geology
report, ' or both, stating that the site has been investigated and
given an opinion that a cut at a steeper slope will be stable and
not create a hazard to public or private property."
_ Although provisions
issue should be adds
Final Plans as part c
issue sh,, :.ld be incc
requesed, CIWMB
and City on BKK L
Preliminary and Par
)r cut slopes steeper than 2:1 are allowed for, the
,sed separate from the Preliminary and Partial,
ongoing landfill operations. Resolution of the
,orated in Final Plans for complete site closure. If
iff would provide technical assistance to the -LEA
idfill cut slope issues but separate from the
a Final Plan approval process.
Planning and Public Works Department Comments -
Partial Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan
Planning Comment: Attachment 9 (BKK Landfill Emergency Contingency Plan) - The phone
numbers and names, in Table I are very out of date- in some cases as
much as three years out of date. Additionally, will this plan be updated
for addition of the proposed methanol plant?
CIV,'IN4B Response: This comment is addressed in the above CIVvTINS Response -37 to LEA
(55) comment Page 9-1 ISection 9 and Attachment 9, Partial Final Plans.
F.-al %%*cr'..in� Drsf- N6,;e :ber 2. 199: P�7� �9
Resperse to Puy iic and ICitv of `�.tst Cov:ra C,=e,:i
BK.K Landfill Preliminarr and Partial Final Closur,,'?ostctosure Plans
DETAILED RESPONSE TO PUBLIC _ D
CITY OF `VEST COVI A CONENIE,+TS
Public and City of West Covina Comments -
Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans
City Comment: This document does not present a closure plan for what exists at the
BKK Landfill. Instead the documents present what may be in the future.
This preliminary plan was to address "what is" and let "what may be"
to the final closure plan. Much of what is presented is done by BKK to
confuse the public on the issues at the Landfill. Even the first version of
the Class I Closure Plan for the BKK*Landfill was better. At that time,
we were all entering new territory with the Class I Closure Plan.
I
Page N. Includes the North Area Expansion Proposal that does not
comply with the City's Unclassified Use Permit (UUP) and violates the
approved Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Landfill. This
ezpansion must have City approval as an amendment to the UUP and
MDP. BKK has failed to file an application as requested. City is
considering enforcement actions to gain compliance.
oughout documents BKK refers to Class VClass III Landfill, Class
Landfill, and Class I Landfill.. The discussion in text bounces back
1 forth between these three options. Needs to be reviewed and
ised to be made very clear. The solid Waste Facilities Permit is for
whole site, although not all of the site can be used for waste
posal. This is the same case for the Interim Status Document for
zardous Waste disposal, the Waste Discharge -Requirements and the
v's Land Use Permit.
Iso, the discussion in text is incomplete if the document is to discuss
to full landfill site, not just the Class III unit. Several examples will
allow in the detailed comments below. This needs to be accurate or the
ublic will be confused and the CIWMB will be approving a document
iat is ripe for a variety of interpretations as it suits the interpreter.
Page 1-3, Paragraph S: Grading plan covers the Class III unit.
Nearest homes are the townhouse in Montera Point, north of the Class
III Landfill Disposal Unit. The proposed townhouses could be 300 feet
from fill.
11
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covina
BKK Landfill Prelirzinary and Partial Final C
Comments
;losure./Postclosure Plans
Page -30
Page 1-3, 1.2.3: Class III unit includes North Area Expansion that has
not been approved by the City. Delete the 24 acres.
Page 4-1, 4.1: Construction Sequence 3 Grading Plan includes North
Area Expansion. Thisl should be deleted from this document and picked
up in any revision of this plan if the City approves the North Area
Expansion.
Paragraph 3:. 1993 kDP proposed by BKK' was reflected by the City
in July, 1993 as being 'inconsistent with other BKK plans and other
agencies' requirements. Thus their 1993 submittal has no credence here
and elsewhere in this 'document.
No mention of San Gabriel Valley Corporate Center anywhere in this
document. i
Table 4.1 should be rye -computed to exclude North Area Expansion.
CIWMB Response: These comments have been addressed in above CIWMB Responses #38,
(56) #39, #40, #49, #50, and #51.
Regarding the terms Class I, Class MI, and Class III Landfills, CIV MB
will request that BKK revise Section 1.1 to clarify the description and
use of these terms and revise all references to the terms as necessary to
improve consistency. Based on discussion with RWQCB staff, the Class
MII landfill includes separate Class I and Class III areas that were
overall subject to closure as a discrete Class I waste management unit.
City Comment: Pages 1-5, to 1-8: Chronology is incomplete and inaccurate. BKK
knows the. chronology, or should know it as well as anyone. They do
not have anyone on staff that goes back to the '70s', however they have
the ability to examine the Class I Closure Plan to improve the
chronology. Even the chronology used by the City for public
information (attached) is more complete. This chronology was reviewed
by BKK when it was first produced.
It has been reported that BKK records are in a less than desirable
condition to provide a historical perspective. More than once over the
years, BKK has come to the Cityfor records they should alreadv have
in their files.
Final `V,)&-k r.z Dra - No%err:eer 199: Pa;e -� 1
Rescor_se to Puoiic a.^.dl Citv of WI-st Covi"a Cominezts
B.C:{ Land'll P-e? mi::ar- and Partial Final Closure.-Postclosure Plans
COi::uCf
a
B.,{IC's work On the cr^er hand, we want an aCCzlraiz Cnronoloa✓,roY
the public.
Some detailed comments are:
1963: L'ZP 71 approved by City Council for a landfill, not a
"nonhazardous waste" landfill. Prior to 1968, there were industrial
wastes that were sewered. .-after 1968, there were classification for
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. 'Hazardous wastes were
transported for land disposal, instead of being sewered
lass fled Use Permit (UUP) was first acted upon by the Planning
:mission in 1962. It did not gain final approval until 1963 when the
Council denied the appeal of residents in the City.
age 1-5, June, 1976: UUP approved by City Council.
November, 1974: MDP approved by City Council.
,tune, 1979: City and Los Angeles County Department of Health
Services as Co -Local Enforcement Agents issued Solid Waste Facilities
Permit. California Waste management Board concurred with permit,
they did not issue it.
1-6: Interim Status document covers all of the BKK property, not
Class UIII disposal units.
4: Planning Director Modification to the UUP approving electrical
erators to use landfill gas instead of flaring gas.
: EPA issues 3008(I)/3013 Enforcement Order to BKK to clear
-event groundwater and air contamination at the landfill that "may
!nt a hazard to human health."
'ovember, 1987. SPI is the.permanent court document in effect today.
(arch, 1989 BKK submits certification that they have completed
losure of Class IIIII disposal unit.
•
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covina
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final C
)mments
sure/Postclosure Plans
Page -3.2
Page 1-7, 1990: Date ',of BKK's submittal of FIRST DRAFT of Report
of Disposal Site Information (RDSI). It was required pursuant to Notice
and Order to be submitted June 25, 1990.-
Page 1-8, September, 1994: BKK requested to have time to ask
CIWMB if they agreed that SWFP only needed a "modification". not a
revision. Also state that CIWMB never took a position on the issue. .
July, 1993: BKK's 1993 MDP submittal was reflected by the City
because of inconsistent with other permits and plans applicable to the
site.
December 1, 1994: Revised Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Plan
submitted by BKK_
Page 1-8, 1.3.2: BKK started operating in 1963.
No mention of Interim status Document for Hazardous Waste disposal
still applies to 583-acre site. Should be listed under DTSC and/or EPA
on following pages.
Page 1-9, 1.3.3: 19; 9 SWFP issued by City Engineer and Los Angeles
County Health Services as CO -LEA.
No mention of EPA orders that cover site.
Need to list all of the permits applicable to the Class III Disposal Unit
and Landfill Site to allow clarity for the public review.
CIWMB Response: To address these comments, CIWMB staff will request that Section
(57) 1.3.1 be deleted. Section 1.3.2 notes that additional regulatory
requirements apply to the Class I landfill and is sufficiently detailed to
reflect other regulatory orders currently in effect.
City Comment: Page 1-11, Line 2: Insert feet and foot after 2 and 1, respectively
Paragraph 1, Line 2: ...asbestos containing. material pursuant to
R WOCB approval: I .
No mention of other, spec f ed or special waste BJU was permitted to
receive and whether, they are receiving these wastes now.
Final Workin� DraF:-
Rescor.-e to Pudic and
BK`t LW dull Pre'.imina
2. 199'�
City: of ` dst Cov:ra Con=ents
,v and Partial Final Closur.`Postclosure Plans
Pale -33
fJ ^:; -r.l� ��'C,._.. is 'Ot ^.:_ '_'� -0 �`Z a dem'l_I '-SC';.•t"Or. Q: la_nd-i1
(;3) -. oterations and is suf .ie.^illy detailed fer acceptance as part of
Pr�eli�-nina.^� Clos�:re z:d Postclosure 1yfairten ->ce Plans.
r ae 2-I s Arti cial -!l - with a Site Engineer; there should be no
City Comment: P � � f
"undocumented fills. " .4n "undocumented" fill is where an engineer was
not present during work or did not approve plan before work started.
Define and clarify! ff"hat are the locations of all "undocumented f Its?"
ClVvtiiB Response: Artificial fills described do not warrant specific detailed evaluation of
(39) slope and foundation. stability at this time. Slope and foundation
suability of the site will be evaluated in further detail as part of Final
Plans for complete site closure.
City Comment: Page 2-24: Groundwater discussion does not include the Class I/III
which also have a Southeast trending sandstone lens from the center of
the Landfill to and under the "W" streets.
Cannot f nd CW25A and CW26A on the Groundwater Monitoring Well
Location Plan Plan #8.- It is our belief these were in the yet -to -be -
approved North Expansion Area and destroyed. Read last' paragraph
and relate to CW wells on Plan 08. It does not make sense.
Page 2-25, Groundwater Quality. -
P, aragraph 1: Monitoring 150 wells pursuant to EPA order.
,raph 2: Contaminants at Southern, Southeast, North Saddle and
boundaries and off -site in those locations - provide full disclosure!
Page 1-26, Paragraph 1: Submitted work plan per 3008(M consent
order, not voluntarily done.
3-1: Leachate management "effective" - how is this true when
list Southeast, South, North and West contaminant plumes per their.
Assessment work plan - needs to be revised to remove self -serving
it and provide accurate and complete information.
3-2, Paragraph 1: Liner is for Class III Disposal Unit only.
to document where the liner was placed and what standards were
at the time of placement.
r�
L
0
Final Working Draft- November 2, 199:55
Response to Public and City. of West Covina)
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final C
Page 3-4, 3.2: Need i
on -site and, off -site we
Page 3-5, 3.2.1: Ne
migrations and not I
"will determine" the
needs to be stated hi
Page 3-7, 3.2.1, Paj
Class 1/III vs. Class
Page -34
Comments
,losure/Postclosure Plans
include 3008(I) EPA order as cause for the
to mention the currently known off -site
e the impression by this paragraph that they
)undwater condition. We already know and it
2: Need to- be clear what is
Mention the location of the known off -site contamination.
150 wells are around)Class YIN not Class III as one is given the
impression they are. Provide correct information.
Page 3-7, 3.2.3, Paragraph 2: Which barrier for
- Class. III?
- Barrier #1 ?
Barrier #2?
This is not Clear!
- if it is the latter barriers, they have not "effectively" blocked liquid
flows given the groundwater contarination beyond these barrier to the
west, on -site, and tothe south, o{-site..
- low permeability 1-arrier constructed along south boundary of landfill
(Class III?) I .
...inhibits southerly flow
... beneath Class III 'Landfill. "
... does not make sense.
Needs clarification.
What about the interface between the .Class III and Class I where it has
been publicly reported as having a high probability of leachate from the
Class I Disposal Uiiit fiou-ing under Class III Disposal. Unit?
i
Are there test results available from MW 50 AR, MW .30 BR, CW27,
MW 51 A & B and MW 52? What do they show regarding migration of
contaminants _,rom the Class I Unit? Are they deep enough to confirm
or deny this migration?
•
•
Phial Workirg Dra:-- No�.'em er 2: 199: , Page
2!sconse to P,.1cl c a.-d Cite of v,'est Covina Coraeas
B'z .< La^diill and Partiai Final Closure:Postclosure Plans
Ye Y o t'st r�s.... .t y � ;y'; 7.7
Pa;e 4-1Z, 4.�, Para;raph 1: The Class III site is fid v lined...
Do�cumert if this is a correct statement.
6.117. Rhat about in conjunction with the Site Assessment and
Mitivation Work Plan?
Plan ur& There had previously been identified a sandstone formation
that trended from the north of the Class III toward Galster Park There
is no monitoring well at the landfill boundary to be sure the liner or
Class III prevents this formation from conducting liquids to Galster
Park or off -site.
There may be other geologic structures on -site that could also be
conduits for liquids to go off -site. This plan needs to be checked
against geologic map of site.. .
He acturing had previously been identified along the north ridge.
How are these potential conduits being addressed?
;e of wells needs to be corrected. City and public will not accept
will prevent it" as a adequate answer.
W� lls referred to in text are not on this map. Sep earlier comments
regarding CW25, et al.
Plan #17. Map shows the sandstone structure at the north property line
that connects with Galster Park that we referred to earlier.
shows. the fracturing on the north property line that we referred to
CIWMB Response: These comments refer to water quality aspects which are under the
(60) purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans on March 29, 1995 and is providing State oversight on the
ongoing ground water and leachate monitoring and control for both the
Class III and Class I Landfills which will continue in postclosure.
•
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covin
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
Comments
ostclosure Plans
Page -; 6
City Comment: Page 3-1: controlling'lan":ftl1 gas determined to be "effective" forgets
the:
- 1984 off -site gas migrations
- surface emissions of j VOC from the landfill
- Vinyl Chloride emissions that have resulted in Proposition 65 notices
to the public.
Needs correct information.
Are there other landf ills with the level of emissions, both quantity and
type?
Page 3-8, 3.3, Paragraph 2: -Mention
- VOC surface emissions of past
- VC emission recently,
- Prop 65 notices
- 1984 gas migration off -site
- BKK is referring to, the full site, part of the site or what?
Page 3--11, 3.3.6: This section is the process described in and used by
the Stipulated Permanent Injunction (SPI). This needs to be clearly
stated! This section should be identical to that in the SPI.
Page 3-1, Paragraph 1: - May be more effective post 1986!
- BKK still has surface emissions.
- What does it mean that the gas collect--n_system is "effective?"
Relative to what? Define "effective. "
Pages 3-13 to 3-15 N ), discussion of current conditions regarding
surface'emissions and Vinyl Chloride exceedences. One is left with the
impression the gas is "controlled" and BKK's system is "effective. "
Wrong impression! •
Page 3-15, Paragra h 3 SCAOMD variance for emission of sulfur
oxides from flares.
Page 5-6, 5.2.4: Ao mention of the monitoring protocol .for gas probes.
BKK is required tol follow SPI or a more rigorous requirement if one
exists.
Page 6-2, 6.1.5: Gas monitoring system is not "complete at this time. "
If they are talking about after the site closes and even -thing has been
Final %Vc*, _ Draft- N.I tmIcer ?. 199:
Rtsco^se eol'P�clic and i:it,; of Wrist Covina Cor- ezts
g'{:{ Landfill Preli:Ilinari and Panial Final C!osure;Postclosure Plans
Pag-z -37
probes will reed some maintenance for unforeseen events. Sta:'ng
are "No more costs" is a poor choice of words.
Plan APO: Gas probe spacing along the north boundary is inadequately
given the fractured geology in this portion of the site.
probe spacing should comply with SPI, including, but not limited
influence testing and monitoring.
probe spacing on the west boundary is inadequate.
CIWMB Response: This section is sufficiently detailed for the purposes of Preliminary
(61) Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans. Regarding use of the term
"effective", CIWUB staff will request the following change to the
second sentence of paragraph 1 of Page 3-1:
.� • ''-R atressee`ne'eatitfis
As=
.. :., o :- groundwater contamination, controlling landfill gas
movement, recovering affected ground water, and treating collected
City Comment: ti Page 3-16, 3.4.1, Paragraph 4: No mention of the City requirements
tmposed`'after 1991 - mud/water flow per our UUP. No mention of
inclement weather plan required of BKK by City. .
CIWMB Response: This section is sufficiently ' detailed for the purposes of Preliminary
(62) Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans.
City Comment: Page 4-4, Paragraph 2: Publish in South Bay, San Diego County, San
Fernando Valley and Central Los Angeles if you are going to notify the
users of the landfill.
CIViIMB Response: Public notification requirements of final site closure are sufficiently
(63) addressed for.the purposes of the Preliminary Plans.
City Comment: Page 4-6: Administrative Building - "Development of borrow areas" -
develop with what? San Gabriel Valley Corporate Center? Any
development needs to. be discussed in this document and relate to
closure and postclosure of the site.
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
What "other projects?" I Clarify and be specific.
Page -38
Page 4-7. Ancillary Storage Areas - Existing storage areas need to be
cleaned up and any future ones controlled. They should be out of
public view.
CIVINM Response: The first comment has I been addressed in above CIWMB Response 431
(64) to above City Comment Page 1-1 (Preliminary. Closure Plan). Ancillary
storage area issues are ,addressed in CIWMB Response #4 to LEA
Comment Page 4-4 (Preliminary Closure Plan).
City Comment: Page 4-8, 4.3: UUP requires perpetual maintenance and SWFP has to
reflect this land use permit. The 1979 SWFP incorporates the UUP by
reference.
Thus, UUP conditions have to be reflected here.
Comply with UUP conditions.
Page 4-23, 4.9: UUP requires perpetual maintenance.
Page 5-1: UUP is in SWFP(1979) and is the land use permit for the
site. Thus, BKK must comply with the condition that requires
maintenance in perpetuity.
Page S 9, 5.3: Postelosure responsibility must comply with UUP
requirement for perpetual maintenance. Needs to be discussed.
6.3: Account for perpetual maintenance.
• What are, terms o an insurance policy? When is it
Exhibit 1. f P Y
effective? When was it approved? What happens. if the premiums are
not paid?
CIWMB Response: In accordance with 14 CCR 17788, the postclosure maintenance period
(65) is a minimum of 30i years and «zll continue as long as the site poses a
threat to public health and safety or the environment.
The financial assurances mechanism for postclosure maintenance meets
14 CCR requirements and has been approved by CINkMB. If the
financial mechanism is not maintained as approved, the operator would
Final Working Draft- 2. 1995 Page.-39
Response to Pu'--lic and�Civ: of Vest Covina Cor: gents
BKK Landfill Preliminan- and Partial Final Closure;Postclosure Plans
ce 319 ^- d-e=^-e re
by- CINV�,13 and the LEA..
Ciry Comment: pl�ge 4-9, 4.4.1: Com i with LZ%P minimum of 3 feet of f nal toyer.
Plan T14:
Detail 7123 : cover soil should be three feet minimum per &- P.
DIetail 5123 : daily cover one foot minimum.
CI`VNfB Response: F final Cover Design (5 feet minimum) complies with the WP
(66) requirement and Plan Drawings are sufficiently detailed regarding cover
conditions for the purposes of Preliminary Plans.
City Comment: Page 4-10, 4.4.2: What "on -site borrow areas?" The one on the map
to the north of Class 1 is not approved for this use. Not consistent with
approved 1974 MDP for the site.
4.3 Same comment as in 4.4.2.
fan #1: The site boundary on this map is incorrect.. Correct to just
:ow the BKK Landfill per the boundary of the UUP. It does not
iclude northeast of the disposal unit and east of the unit to Walnut City
these plans are also in the latest draft of RDS1, they also have to be
Plan #2: Shows the North Area Expansion that has not been approved
by the City per previous communication to BKK and stated earlier in
these comments.
tows 'proposed commercial property" south of scales .on BKK
�operty..There has been no approval of same by City. There is
5solutely no discussion in the text about this commercial, San Gabriel
alley Corporate Center or any other proposed use on the site.
'liminate all references or discuss in correct context and provide full
ipment area". appears. to be on Class I unit. Needs to be more
ly defined.
'UUP/SWFP PERMIT BOUNDARY"
j should also be labeled Interim
Status Document Boundary Hazardous Waste Disposal.
0
•
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covin
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
Comments
ostclosure Plans
Does not show steam generator north of Turbine.
Page -40
Building relationships and orientation in the administration -turbine area
needs to be checked.
Does not show zoning"" use in Walnut at southeast corner of
Amar/Vogales.
Plan #3: Ancillary storage areas do not comply with MDP for site.
Remove North Expansion Area.
Methanol plant here, but not on Plan 2 or discussed in text. This must
be corrected
Must there be ancillary storage areas?
Is this Plan what is, or at will be or both? In other words is this
BKK past, BKK present, or BKK future?
Water line connection off Fairgrove at north boundary is Suburban
Water Company's. water line..
No plans have been submitted to or approved by the City. regarding
Turbine 93.
Turbine 92 - steam -electric generator?
Plan #4: Cover and borrow sites at southwest corner of site and west
of Class III disposal unit do not comply with MDP.
Remove North Area Expansion.
Cover borrow site north of Class I. Unit not approved and violates
MDP.
Grades are indicated on the Plan as being shown for 'presentation
only. " What is BKK going to be held to?
West 'Borrow Area final grade is 30-40 feet below grade of .Azusa
Avenue. This is not consistent with the MDP for the site.
Final Workinz Draft-
Resconse to Public and
B:tK Landfill Prelirnir.;
1995 Page -41
;it;; of West Covina Cor^.:nents
,; and Partial Final ClosarePostclosure Plans
Plan =5: Remove iVar:it ,ire:: Z:, ansion.
and west borrow areas violate _LIDP.
site at northeast corner not approved and violates AIDP.
97: Remove North Area Expansion.
Plan #9: Grading of the northeast borrow site violates MDP. _
Gas probes near the west boundary of the property leads one to believe
the "borrow site will be used for waste. " City has every suspicion that
BIKK does intend to use this area for waste disposal
Plan #9: Remove the North Area Expansion.
Plan #10: Remove the North Area Expansion.
#11: Remove the north Area Expansion. Earlier comments
ding borrow sites are also applicable here. Engineering to
,-e drainage all goes into the County drain under Azusa Avenue,
of the BKK Landfill entrance.
#12: The comments on Plan No. 11 are applicable ,l ere..
the drainage from Class I unit also been considered? It is not
either way.
Ian #13: Engineering details to be checked against City requirements.
KK required to comply with City Grading and Drainage Code
Plan #14: Details. need to have an Engineer check:
Detail 9123: shows "refuse" on top of several above layers
"Existing Class 1 Final Cover" and "Existing Class I Refuse. Is
this proposing to dump waste over Class 1? This is the 'wedge'
that the regulatory agencies have stated there will be no waste
deposited in the 'wedge?' Have they changed their minds?
Final Working Draft- November 2; 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covin
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
Comments
sure Plans
Page -42
Plan 415: Details for North Area Expansion. As stated earlier, this
expansion should not be. included in this Plan.
Any final slopes are to be 2:1 maximum pursuant to the UUP.
Plan #16: Cross sections may be correct for an engineer, but the
public needs to see cross sections that have the same horizontal and
vertical scales. This approach is deceptive for the layperson.
The earlier comments regarding the North Area Expansion and borrow
sites are applicable hire.
CIWN113 Response:
These comments have been addressed in above CIWMB Responses #38,
(67)
09, 940, #49, #50, #51; #54.
City Comment:
Page 5-2, 5.2:. Need to discuss the Class YIII Inspection and
Maintenance Program. Is it going to be used on Class III unit? Is this
document attached- as an Exhibit? In other works, what is the function
of this document as it pertains to the Class III Disposal Unit? If the
discussion that follows is the Class' I/11111I Inspection and Maintenance
- '
Program, then I need this Program document to assess accuracy of this
discussion.
CIWMB Response:
The Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans are stand
(68)
alone documents which address the Class III Landfill. It is not
necessary to include the Class VIII Program in the Preliminary Fians.
City Comment: Page 1-1, 1.1, Paragraph 1: No mention of Interim Status Document
that covers the site.
Paragraph 2: North Expansion Area is again referenced. This needs to
be removed.
Page 1-3, 1.3, Paragraph 1: Reference to the 1993 ?�IDP grading plan
must be deleted. Drawing No. 1 must be based on 1974 hIDP.
Drawing A'o. 2 based on Construction Sequence 3 Grading Plan. As
stated earlier, this does not conform with AIDP.
Fral �.�'or'.:in7 Draa- 199:
Re;ccr._e to Pu iic and Cit`• of 'est Co�ii:a Cor v�nzats
g:{:� Lard ;il P:e!imirlar, and Partial Final Closur"Postclosure Plans
2: 21!6 „'.�.'�....i�'• Jfm?,^.;:,._.`�J.�....
J`
Paze -43
age 2-3, 2.1.6: Str.c':ire in Galster Park in a to,tier at r^e Boy's
amp
r 2-4, 2.1.8: Reference to the North Area Expansion is premature
as stated earlier, it must be deleted
.1.9: The statement here is wrong. The North Expansion Area does
of have approval from the City for waste disposal. This expansion
iolates the MDP for the site.
2.1: Landfill began operation in 1963. The City Council did not
2hold the Planning Commission's decision until February 25, 1963.
2-5, 2.2.4: Reference to 1993 MDP must be deleted. It has not
approved by the City per the UUP.
4-3, 4.2.1: Reference to ancillary storage areas. See previous
ents.
Page 4-4, 4.3.2,'Paragraph 1: Reference to one foot compacted low
permeability soil and 2 feet of compacted foundation soil =UUP
minimum requirement of 3 feet?
Page 4-8, 4.4.2: Vertical interval of benches listed as 50 feet. Either
they comply with City Grading Ordinance or we continue the waiver
under the .Uniform Grading Code. Width of benches are 15 feet.., "Does
not comply with the City Code.
Page 4-9, 4.4, Paragraph 3: Monuments should already be in place. If
not, violation of UUP Condition 13B.
Page 4-10, 4.5.3: Using the term "development plan" is conforming. It
is really a reference to final grades for the site.
Page 5-2, Paragraph 1: Reference to North Area Expansion must be
deleted
Page 5-4,'5.2.1: Reference to 'potential for off -site migration of
contaminants" incorrectly characterizes the existing conditions. This
CJ
•
Final. Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covin
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final
includes identified off -
west of site! Correct
5.2.2, Paragraph 3:
Page 5-5, 5.3.1:
the monitoring c
5.3.2: State: "the
Page 5-7, 5.4.1: Up
section, should menti
Page 5-7, 5.4.3:
5.4.4. Must comply
Page 5-8, 5.5.1: d
and resulting SPI..
Page 8-2, 8.2:
requirement for
Page -44
Comments
;losure/Postclosure Plans
e contaminants southeast, south, north, and
his error.
lete reference to North Area Expansion.
should refer to the off -site contamination and
in each of the areas.
are the result of EPA order. "
1984, could not say this. Since it is a history
the gas migration in 1984 and the resulting SPI.
t comply with SPI.
SPI.
regarding 1984 gas migration problem
is a part of SWFP. r BKK must comply with UUP
enance of site in perpetuity.
CIWMB Response: These comments have been addressed in above CIWMB responses to
(69) City of West Covina Comments concerning the Preliminary Closure an.
Postclosure Maintenance Plans.
I
City Comment: Page 5--1, 5.1.1: Statement that leachate control system{ "'has been
effective in mitigation of groundwater contamination... " is not consistent
with the existence of off -site contamination southeast, north, south, and
west of the landfill.. � Since this is a History section, these areas need to
be included. Also the word "effective" must be deleted.
Page 5-8, 5.5.1: Remove the work "effective."
CI«NI-B Response: Regarding use of the te:•: "efective", CIS' staff ill request the
P. g
(70) following change to the second sentence of Page 5-1 Section 5.1.1:
This program eepp-e: eei, -e in •nitigating acid esses the nee at thi s
fuse foz mtgattiig groundwater contamination, recovering affected
ground water, and ;treating collected liquids.
0
Page -'
Rts:Cn_;: t0 oI `best Ccvina Comments
and P=ial Final C'.osure, ?'ostclosure Plans
is
and sentence of Page 5-3 Section
is program2?—Cti.n -._.'_ ,.:..a .,, .._ 7.�n $�s$eSL
t1iG' �eZ.'d �E ttll�
t:_acollecting and controlling landfill gas generated at the Clays I
ge 1-1, 1.1: Must mention the Interim Status Document.
City Comment: Pa
2: Delete .-reference to North Area Expansion.
9
Page 1-2, 1.3: Reference to BKK 1993 MDP submittal that was
rejected by the City. Delete reference..
Page 1-3, Paragraph 2: Reference to BKK 1993 MDP submittal that
was rejected by the City. Delete reference.
Page 2-1, 2.2, Paragraph 2: Delete reference to 1993 MDP.
Reference to 1994 MDP. nat is this?
5--2, Paragraph 3: Delete reference to North Area Expansion.
5-5, y5.2.1: Same comments as in previous plan regarding off -site
Page 5.6, 5.3.1: Same comments as in previous plan regarding off -site
contamination, not just 'potential:"
5.3.2: Refer to EPA order that required these wells.
Page 5-7, 5.4.1: Same comments as in previous plan regarding 1984
migration and SPI.
Page 5.8, 5.4.4: Reporting and other requirements of SPI.
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995 1 Page -46
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
1
Page 7-1, 7.2: BKK' financial responsibility for postclosure is in
perpetuity pursuant toll U UP.
I
CIWMB Response: These comments have l been addressed in above CIWMB responses to
(71) City of West Covina Comments concerning the Preliminary Closure. and
Postclosure Maintenance Plans.
City Comment: Page 5-9, 5.5.2: Mixes SCAQ_�fD requirements for surface emissions
and CIWMB and SPI regarding the migration off -site. This should be
correctly stated to reflect the correct jurisdiction and activities of these
agencies.
Page 5-10, 5.5.6: System. of gas migration controls and their
specification are required by CIWMB, with SCAQMD' requiring the
collection of landfill gas. Also have to include the SPI requirement
here.
i
CIWMB Response: These comments have been addressed in above CIWMB Response 429
(72) and #30 to LEA Comments Page 5-9 and 5-10, Partial Final Postclosure
Maintenance Plans.
i .
City Comment: Page 5-1, 5.1.1: Same comments as on previous plan regarding the use
of the word "effective;" for the gas collection system. Also correct the
deficiencies in the,; isfory as previously noted.
CIW1viB Response: Regarding use of the iterm "effective", CIWMB staff will request the.
(73) fc� owing change to the second sentence of Page 5-1 Section 5.1.1:
This program ..� addresses: tYte r€escl a'tiu5
m 1's�tgattg groundwater contamination, recovering affected
ground water, and treating collected liquids.
i
Interim Progress Report on Final Coverl Construction
City Comment: Plate I: A repeat of Construction Sequence 3. Earlier comments apply
here also.
Appendix A: Slope Stability. Plate 1 repeats .the Construction
Sequence 3 Plan. Earlier comments apply here also.
i
Final 1,VJ-r.c:n-a D-a::
`Res-Cnse to Pu' iic ands
B,K:<: i ar LiCll 07,! r�
Pa?! -4
Ct VVI-st Covina Co=enis
^:a, .nd Partial Final Plans
rea. These dvcumert t��a ��orth .4rea P:.cansivr: 1:ivlat:on of the MD?.
re ana rosrccusure -
ge 1, Paragraph 2: Delete reference to 1993 ,vfDP that was rejected
the City. Revise this report accordingly since it is based on the
ected 1993 ,VDP submittal.
ge d, Paragraph 1: Delete reference to 1993 AMP that .,.,as rejected
the City. Revise this report accordingly since it is based on the
ected 1993 MDP submittal.
nts).
2: Construction Sequence No. 3 incorrect (see previous
Paragraphs 3: Another reference to the rejected 1993 MDP. This
reference must be deleted.
General Comment: There are numerous comments about and
references to on the same rejected 1993 MDP submittal that has no
�legal standing since_ it has not received City approval. Documents need
to be reviewed and revised to correct all incorrect references.
Exhibit B: Surface drainage plan and hydrology map based on
Construction Sequence No. 3. Earlier comments on this Construction
Sequence apply here.
Exhibit C: Incorrectly based on 1993 MDP submittal. Incorrectly
presumes disposal of waste in 'wedge.' Incorrectly includes North
Expansion Area -
Exhibit E: See comments on Exhibit B.
Design Drawings
Exhibit 1: Incorrectly based on Construction Sequence No. 3.
Exhibit 2: Incorrectly based on Construction Sequence No. 3.
Plan 3: Incorrectly based on construction Sequence No. 3.
Plan 12: Incorrectly based on Construction Sequence No. 3.
Plan 13: Looks like BKK is filling the west half of the wedge based
0
0
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West CovinajComments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
CIWMB Response:
(74)
These comments have
City of West Covina (
Postclosure Maintennc
#40, 449, #50, and #5
Page -43
Construction Sequence No. 3, but has been
dified with steeper slopes as shown on the plan.
!en addressed in above CIWMB responses to
mments concerning the Preliminary Closure and
Plans and above CIWMB Responses #38, #39,
i
CityComment: Exhibit D?: There was no Exhibit D. Was this on purpose or is it
missing? Need a copy to complete submittal of BKK
CIWMB Response: Exhibit D (Settlement !Analysis) has been incorporated in the Final
(75) Partial Plans. The infgrmation has been reviewed by CI`NMB staff and
determined to be acceptable per 14 CCR 17776.
City Comment: Emergency Contingency Plan should be reviewed by City emergency
service department.
CIWMB Response: This comment have been addressed in above CIWMB Response #37 to
(76) LEA comments (Partial Final. Postclosure Maintenance Plan- Page 9-1
Section 9).
j
California Environmental! Quality Act (CEQA) Comments
City Comment: In the Notice of Public Comment for these Plans the CIWMB states
"The Board recognizes that closure and postclosureg maintenance plans
are, in ess nce, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Implementation Schedules,
which are. a requirement under CECA, Public Resources Code, Section
21081.6. Since these !plans may serve to fulfill this statutory
requirement, preparation of a separate document, for this purpose, may
not be necessary. It is our opinion that based on what these plans
contain a full CEQA review is required BKK has elected to include in
these plans:
1. The North Expansion.
2 The 1993 MDP they submitted to the City.
3. The removal of the west and south ridge lines in violation of the
approved AdDP for the site.
4. The filing of the 'u edge ' with trash.
5. The removal of dirt from a borrow site north of the closed Class
I Disposal Unit.
I
n �l Working- Draft- \01.2=zr
t0 I�'_� � C andCir;✓ CI %V-S" CC`::^'_ CC---_-2nts ..
B:tt ilnd_:1 �:'�:::i11iI:W^% "and Partial Final Closure; Poste osure Plans
r .
Pa`t =9
:I ,•eye ..,ye �"_ - _:� ..._.. ',se"� re•;>� r�','e•.s�:.,' _.
"e?'l=Clot; agenC;1 fCr.2.'^.';rorm.�.nl::[ imp^,C:CtS, Com:iiar.; 2 io )'dJ'_lu.'ons
J"
In gi.'en a�pro':al a r, age^C;l. As stated ear"er, the Clos�a6 ar:d
bostclosure plans are to address "what is, " not "what will be. " As Iona,
as BKK insists these plans address "what will be, " this constitutes a new
project under CEOA. Therefore, a full environmental review must be
conducted.
If BKK removes all of these items from the closure and postclosure
plans and only addresses "what is" then there may not be a need for a
CEOA review. CIPKVfB should require BKK to only include in their
plans those items that have the approval of all agencies to do on the
site.' This includes the City of West Covina.
CIWMB Response:. Concerns have been expressed regarding the Partial Final and
(77) Preliminary Plans authorizing or sanctioning site operations, grading,
and closure dates which are under dispute. This concern is unfounded.
Preliminary closure/postclosure plans solely address conformity with 14
CCR closure/postclosure regulations and cannot be implemented. The
Partial Final Plans specifically address placement of final cover as the
site progressively reaches final grades, pursuant to 14 CCR Section
17764(b)(1). BKK has been implementing these activities since 1992 as
prescribed in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit, Unclassified Use Permit
No. 71 Revision 5 Amendment (Items 4.E., 11.F., and 25), and Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 87-39 (Finding 22). Final
cover placement conducted so far has been in compliance with State
Minimum Standards for protection of public health and safety and the
environment. The Partial Final .Plans do not sanction or authorize. site
configurations which will not be authorized and only address
implementation of individual closure activities that involve negligible or
no expansion of use beyond that previously existing.
In addition, the Preliminary and Partial Final Plans must be amended or
revised as necessary to reflect resolution of ongoing disputes and any
permit changes, until final closure/postclosure plans for complete site
closure are submitted. This would be required pursuant to 14 CCR
18272 and 18276.
Because they address activities which involve negligible or no expansion
of use beyond that previously existing, approval of the Partial Final
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/postclosure Plans
City Comment:
CIWMB Response:
r'(/! pO)
Page -50
Plans by CIV;N[B and the LEA would be exempt from CEQA pursuant
to 14 CCR Section 15301 (Class I Exemption). Although approval
would be exempt from CEQA, extensive environmental review and
consideration of comments from the public and public agencies has been
incorporated in the closure/postclosure plan review process. In addition,
any permit action would be subject to a separate CEQA review as
appropriate.
The Notice of Public Comment indicates the other agencies that have
been notified to provide comment. Notable by their absence from this
list is the US Environmental Protection Agency. The full 583-acre site
is under a USEPA enforcement order. The same site is under an
Interim Status Document for Hazardous Waste Disposal. The USEPA is
certainly a responsible party when it comes to theregulation of this site.
Prior to the CIWMB taking any actions, preliminary or final, on the
Closure and Postclosure Plans, the USEPA must be given ample time to
review and comment on the documents. Of particular concern is the
relationship between the Class III and Class I disposal units.
CIWMB has notified and consulted extensively with agencies during the
Preliminary and Partial Final Plan review process. In particular,
discussions have been conducted with the Interagency Steering
Committee (ISC). The ISC includes United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) as lead agency, the Department of Toxics
Substances Control (DTSC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District .
(SCQAMD), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), the City of West Covina Solid Waste Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA), and the City of West Covina Environmental Services
Department. CIW M and the LEA will continue to work Mth ISC
members on closure and postclosure issues after approval of Preliminary
and Partial Final Plans.
COM. N[ENTS RECEIVED AT THE FEBRUAR.Y 16, 1995, CITY OF VV7EST CONT_�A
WASTE NLACN4GE'N'IENT AND E'�'vTRO'.N-.NMNTAL QUALITY CO' l'-FISSION
Comments of Jean Arneson:
Public Comment: Location map is a very outdated map. The location map should reflect
-what is in the area today. The Landfill should be placed on a map that
1
• •
ir+-�;:al Wcr::inz Cra��rl-
Page -5 1
an'J. Cil�i %v z5t Covina CoC".n':er:�s
B: t =I Pan al Final C'.cs,,:re.?cstcicsure Plans
:crr�rt str: .- crd %e:v� urvurc::ita .�ru; i.. i
s. o ws
cu rrerr loca:ier. mar" cc:::'�: con%iuse the public.
CIN`ti13 Response: Please refer to CIIN-N B Response ,�49.
(i9)
Public Comment: Page 1-5: The landfill operation started in 1963.
CI`VNIB Response: Section 1.3.1 (Facility History) is being requested to be deleted from the
(80) Preliminary Plans.
Public Comment: Page 1-10, Paragraph 5: Daily disposal cell unit described here could
receive more than 13, 000 tons per day if one uses:
the described size of the daily disposal cell
the compaction rate of trash used by BKK
the weight of trash per cubic yard.
Provide a realistic description of a daily disposal cell based on 12,000
tons per day and reasonable assumptions. Describe the assumptions.
Page 1-11: Other special wastes are not listed. Should be a complete
list of these wastes and locations of disposal if appropriate. It would be
;appropriate for asbestos.
;Page 2-10, 2.2.4, Paragraph 1: Define the word "near"as used.in this
section. There were homes southwest of Amar and Azusa before the
landfill started operation. These homes were within 1, 800 feet of the
Landfill property. Other homes were -within 2, 000 feet northwest. of the
site. This needs to be clarified and reflected in the text and maps of this
document.
CIWMB Response: j Section 1.4 is not intended to be a detailed description of landfill
(81) operations and is sufficiently detailed for acceptance as part of
Preliminary Plans. Sections 2.2.4 is not intended to be a detailed
description of surrounding land use before the landfill started operation
j and is sufficiently detailed for acceptance.
Public Comment Page 2-25: There is groundwater contamination off -site in several
areas adjacent to the Landfill. This needs to be described in this
document.
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995 Page -52
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments .
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
Page 2-26: There are plumnes of contaminated groundwater abutting
and from the Landfill.
CIWMB Response: These comments refer to water quality aspects which are under the
(82) purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans on March 29, 1995 and is providing State oversight on the
ongoing ground water and leachate monitoring and control for both the
Class III and Class I Landfills which will continue during postclosure.
Public Comment: Page 3-9: Any mention of the methanol production plant is premature.
CIWMB Response: The Preliminary Plans adequately reflect that the potential future
(83) methanol production plant has not been approved. ,
Public Comment: Page 340, 3.3.5, Paragraph 2: Questioned BKK's retention of records
for three years. What is the requirements and what records are
retained?
OWNS Response: Monitoring reports are required to be submitted to regulatory agencies.
t (84) The agencies will retain reports in their public files. CIWMB staff are
not aware of any specific requirement for time periods of on -site
retention of the landfill gas collection system monitoring report records.
Public Comment: Page 3-13: What is the surface emissions monitoring frequency?
CIWMB Response: Surface emissions monitoring is conducted on at least a quarterly basis.
(85)
Public Comment: Page 4-1: BKK's approved MDP allows more disposal capacity, but it
does not reflect the changes and occurrences since 1974. For example,
the 1974 MDP did: not have a separate Class I disposal unit from the
Class III disposal unit.-
CIWMB Response: The MDP is part of ongoing disputes between the City of West Covina
(86) and BKK. Upon resolution of the disputes, the Preliminary and Partial
Final Plans must be amended or revised in accordance %krith 14 CCR
18272 and 18276, and final plans for complete site closure developed.
•
F ,nal �;� or'.cin_ 1 r a..- No : e: ccr _. ; y�i � Pa=e
-51
R�sonse to P.'-iic a.^^.c'_ C;-!; c �,�'_st Cc�ina Cct~ents
B:K Lan', •' °:e!;;-,'r�^ nd P :.-tial Final C'csu:�'Postclost:re Plans
.u:li1 . ,:i .
Pu01;c Commer.:: The location map uses a LSGS man that is based on 1951 aerials.
Even this map shows the housing south and west of the Landfill. All of
the South R.dge needs to be retained. .4?ny proposal to remove this
ridge. is a violation of the 197.1 MDR It is the only visual protection
for the residents and commercial to the south.
'he various permit boundaries are inaccurate andl'or incomplete.
ubmitted maps are a "cartoon" since they are 'for presentation only"
nd are not signed by the site engineer. Just what will BK. be
equired to comply with if the plans are not signed?
Recommends to the Commission that the original area permitted for
disposal (1978 WDRs) used in the Closure Plan with no expansion until
I
environmental impact report. and application to expand is approved
by the City.
CIWMB Response: Site location, land use, and design maps and drawings are adequate for
r (87) Ithe purposes of Preliminary and Partial Final Plans. Minor revisions
will, be requested to reflect comments from the City of West Covina
LEA and Planning Departments. They will require updating as
necessary for incorporation in final plans for complete site closure.
Public Comment:
CIWMB Response:
(88)
The MDP is- a major part of the ongoing disputes between the, City of
West Covina and BKK. Upon resolution of the disputes, the
Preliminary and Partial Final Plans must be amended or. revised in
accordance with 14 CCR 18272 and 18276, and final plans for complete
site closure developed.
There is off -site groundwater contamination north, south, southeast and
west of and from the Landfill.
These comments refer to water quality aspects which are under the
purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans on March 29, 1995 and is providing State oversight on the
ongoing ground water and leachate monitoring and control for both the
Class III and Class I Landfills which will continue during postclosure.
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995 Page -54-
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
Composite Comments from the Commission
Commission What is the real capacity of the Landfill in tons, cubic yards and years
Comment: without any expansion to the north, west, or waste disposal in the
'wedge'.
Page 4-11: There is concern that the only cover for the landfill is from
all.of the ridge lines The removal of the ridges to the west and south
and north of the Class I disposal unit is in violation of the approved
1974 MDP for Landfill site.
CIWMB Response: Upon resolution of ongoing issues dispute between the City of West
(89) Covina and BKK, revision or amendment of the Preliminary and Partial
Final Plans is required and must be incorporated in final plans for
complete site closure. Among these issues are grading and site closure
date which will trigger revision of capacity calculations.
Commission Page 3-9: Need to estimate the landfill gas to be produced in the Class
Comment: III disposal unit and place it in the context of the gas produced from the
Class I disposal unit. According to the SCAQMD flare variance the
t amount of gas produced from the Class I is 17-18, 000 CFM. Project
the amount to be produced from the Class III. Evaluate the adequacy
of the flares, turbines and electrical generating facilities to use this
volume of gas.
Page 4-7: According the BKK's plans, the flares and electrical
generators will use all of the collected gas at the Landfill. There needs
"to be documentation on the -gas pr.o.Iuced (Class 1, Class III and total)
and the amount of -gas used by flares, turbines and electrical generators..
We remember BKK's application to the Cityfor a third flare station.
CIWMB Response: CI YNINM staff have reviewed gas collection and control information
(90) provided in the Preliminary and Partial Final Plans and have determined
that this information meets regulatory requirements and is sufficient for
approval. Gas production capabilities presented are sufficient at this
time to address closure and postclosure maintenance. Revised
calculations would be warranted to support proposals for expansion of
production capabilities.
e
r
r1^a; �.� art - ^�^�' �. 1 1�1a� pa"'
and' C:L, o %VSt Coy: ;::a C.):� --Zs
B.L:K L=d:-. and Par•iat Fira' C!c:urt;Postclosure Plans
a.
I
Ci/i,.....
Comment: not arpropric to as a Jounuation prior to final cover. L %P requires one
foot of com acted soil.
CI`'vtiB Res; once
(91)
Commission
Comment:
CBVNM Response:
(92)
Commission
Comment:
The proposed Final Cover Design (5 feet rnininnnun monolithic sail)
complies with the T-T P requirement. The comment just restates the
regulation of 14 CCR 17773.
Page 4-9? Insurance that is listed in the documents is not adequate for
a 30 year maintenance. It does not comply with the underlying land
use permit requirement for maintenance in perpetuity. CIWMB needs to
have any insurance policy comply with that requirement.
The financial assurance is not an insurance. policy. It does not appear
to be. an adequate amount. It has not been approved by CIWMB.
In accordance with 14 CCR 17788, the postclosure maintenance period
is a minimum of 30-years and will continue as long as the site poses a
threat to public health and safety or the environment.
The financial assurances mechanism for closure and postclosure
maintenance meets 14 CCR requirements and has been approved by
CIWMB. If the financial mechanism is not maintained as approved, the
operator would be in violation of 14 CCR 18282 and 18283 and would
therefore be subject to enforcement action by OWNS and the LEA.
Page 2-25, Paragraph 3: BKK indicates the pluMe flow rate off -site
from the Landfill is much lower than expected Specie data needs to
be provided to support this conclusion in this document.
Paragraph 3: An April, 1991 study is referred to in this section. What
is this study? If this relates to the plumne, off -site contamination, flow
rates or is otherwise the basis for any conclusionary statements in the
Closure Plan, this study must be identified and attached as an appendix.
Has there been any updates of this study? If so, what were the results?
If not, why has it not been updated? What is a reasonable amount of
time between such studies?
Page 3-7, Paragraph 3: BKK indicates they have a groundwater
collection system below the Class III liner. ` Where does any collected
groundwater go? Does it go to the leachate treatment plant (LTP)? If
i '; •
Final Working Draft-
November 2, 1995 Page -56
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary
and Partial Final ClosurefPostclosure Plans
so, the LTP is for the treatment of hazardous waste liquids. How can
collected groundwater go to the LTP? Is it presumed to be
contaminated? If so, what is the source of the contamination? If it
does not go to the LTP; where does it. go?
Page 5-1: What are the number of wells that will be monitored on -site
vs. off -site and groundwater vs. gas?
Page 5-8: Decommissioning of groundwater monitoring wells really
should not be allowed.; What is the specific process for any
decommissioning? Is it going to be the same. process followed by
CIWMB on the 'K' Gas Collection Wells? How will the public have
confidence in long term monitoring if wells a changed out?.
CIWMB Response:
These comments refer..;to water quality aspects which are under the
(93)
purview of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB approved the Preliminary and Partial Final
Plans on March 29, 1995 and is providing State oversight on the
ongoing ground water,; and leachate monitoring and control for both the
r.
Class III and Class I Landfills which will continue during_ postclosure.
Commission
A contingency plan for gas collection needs to be provided in the event
Comment:
the methanol production facility is not approved.
The Stipulated Permanent Injunction (SPI. gas well, monitoring probe
and testing process should be totally incorporated in the Closure and
Postclosure Plans. Any SPI requirements.. %O? groundwater monitoring
wells should also be incorporated into the .Tans.,
Commission
The ultimate height of the Class III disposal unit should be in writing in
Comment:
the text, not just on a plan that is 'for presentation only. "
CIWMB Response:
Grading plans and description are adequate for the purposes of
(94)
- approval of Preliminary and Partial Final Plans pursuant to 14 CCR but
,,rill require amendment or re,%lsion upon resolution of issues of dispute
between the Citv of West Covilza and BKK.
Commission
There needs to be more seismic analysis on impacts on the Landfill -
Comment:
Recent information on unidentified faults, alleged inactive faults, the
greater magnitudes of earthquakes on minor faults, and sympathetic
fault .movements when another fault moves warrant such. analysis. BKK
11
t
f,
E rat ,v er ; Draft- NNo,,-ern. ber ?. 1995 Pace 7
Res -orse to P•-:blic and Cite of 1:Vest Covina Ccmrrents
B. K Landiill Prelirn nary and Partial rinal,Closure;Postclosure Plans
is alleged to. ce ar t.%:e .:est terminus of the San .lose Fain:. ro:v do w-e
know this fault does not dip under the Landfill?
There is no mention of the Walnut Creek Fault?
CI`Z :NIB Response: Seismic design aspects are sufficient to meet the requirements of
(95) 14 CCR for Preliminary and Partial Final Plan approval. In addition, no
significant damage has been reported to the BKK landfill from the
major seismic events which have recently occurred in the region.
Commission What is the maintenance program for the one million gallon reservoir
on Comment: the Landfill site? What is the impacts in the event of rupture? What is
the reliability of the reservoir over the 30+ years of site maintenance?
What are, the seismic impacts on the reservoir?
CIWMB Response: The reservoir is an ongoing land use issue which should be addressed
independently from the Preliminary and Partial Final Plans and
incorporated into final plans for complete site closure.
.Commission Page 4-3: - Remove any reference to ADC in Table 4.1.
r
Comment:
CIWMB Response: The Table shows final capacity scenarios with ADC and without ADC.
(97) ADC use could still be proposed and therefore the Table is acceptable.
Commission Page 4-18: Seed mix needs to have serious review by someone quaked
Comment: to evaluate the plants' needs and impacts.
Irrigation will be needed for several of the listed plant species a ter the
five years specified in the Plans. Several of the plants will not
"naturalize" in. the five years or any time thereafter.
Some of the plants need extensive irrigation.
Other -plants have a very expansive root system that kills other plants
and offspring for the parent plant within the lateral radius of the parent.
Other plants appear to, be drought tolerant. This could mean their roots
go deep and could penetrate the landfill cover.
Final Working Draft- November 2, 1995
Response to Public and City of West Covina Comments
BKK Landfill Preliminary and Partial Final Closure/Postclosure Plans
Page -58
CIWN B Response: Vegetation specifications have been revised to reflect comments and
(98) meet 14 CCR requirements (See CIWMB Responses #34. Upon
resolution of local landscaping issues, revision or amendment of
Preliminary and Partial Final Plans in accordance with 14 CCR 18272
and 18276, and incorporation in final plans for complete site closure
will be required.
{
;i
CITY. OF WEST COVINA
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven W. Wylie, Assistant City Manager
(818) 814-8401
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AND BKK CORPORATION ANNOUNCE
SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION-- BKK LANDFILL TO CLOSE
NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 15,1996
Officials of 'the City of West Covina and the BKK Corporation on Wednesday,
January 17, consented to a judgement in the lengthy litigation between the parties over
the closure date of the BKK Landfill. The judgement establishes September 15, 1996, as
a firm and binding closure date for the BKK Landfill in West Covina, although officials
from both parties are optimistic that the facility could cease the receipt of waste as early
as June 30. 1
"This is a momentous day for West Covina," announced Mayor Steve Herfert. "It marks
the .beginning oft I e end of a most difficult time for the City, its residents, and the BKK
Corporation. With the settlement of this litigation, we are on the road to a firm closure
date, one that wi 1 11 keep this landfill closed forever. In addition, a separate letter
agreement paves the way for a responsible closure, which will enable BKK to develop its
periphery with ap ropriate uses while requiring the landfill slopes to be landscaped much
more extensively than would otherwise have happened."
The judgement pertains only to the litigation over the enforceability of the 1985
Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU) between the City and BKK, which
established a closure date of November 1995. The parties had argued over the
enforceability of that document. Several attempts to settle the litigation proved futile, and
1444 W. Garvey Avenue, Post Office Box 1440, Wcst Covina,. California 91790
the trial resumed
agreement during
'News ele'ase
CITY OF WEST COVINA
January 16 before Judge William Drake. The parties reached
negotiations that lasted into the following day.
I'
Still to be resolved are several separate .pieces of litigation between the City and BKK
over such things as disputed business license taxes and a suit brought by BKK against the
City alleging violation of the corporation's civil rights.
The judgement in the MOU case requires the BKK Corporation or any successor to
"permanently cease accepting any waste for handling, transfer, recycling, disposal,
landfilling, or any other related activities at the BKK landfill by no later than September
15, 1996." It permits BKK to continue to mitigate landfill gas and leachate connected
with past operations of the landfill, to use reclaimed or recycled water on the site, and to
receive non -contaminated soil from off -site sources to be used for final landfill cover.
In addition, the judgement decrees that the City's Unclassified Use Permit will be revised
and/or amended t10 reflect the closure date and other limitations contained in the
judgement. Lastly; the judgement will be recorded and run with the land, preventing the
site from reopening for waste disposal activities by BKK or any other party at any time in
the future.
Along with the judgement in the MOU litigation, the parties have approved a separate
letter agreement providing viding a framework for the ultimate closure of the 583 acre site. The
agreement gives BKK the right to grade certain slopes adjacent to Azusa Avenue to
create developable{pads for future commercial use as well as the creation of sufficient soil
for daily and final i over until the closure date.
1444 W. Garvey Avenue, Post Office B x 1440, West Covina, California 91790
CITY OF WEST COVINA
The right to grade in this agreement is conditioned upon the provision of satisfactory
proof that sufficient soil.exists not only for daily and final cover, but also to provide a
much deeper layer for enhanced landscaping to occur on the existing landfill slopes. This
landscaping is designed to replace the grass cover currently seen on these slopes and will
more closely resemble the landscaping at other sites such as Puente Hills. BKK is
required to submit the landscaping plan by April 1, 1996, and the landscaping must be
commenced in phases as the landfill itself closes.
' 3
1444 W._ Garvey Avenue, Post Office Box 1440, West Covina, California 91790
•
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RUTAN &c TUCKER
LEONARD A. HAMPEL (State Bar No. 35964)
LAYNE H. MELZER (State Bar No. 132292)
ELIZABETH L. HANNA (State Bar No. 100856)
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, California 92626-1998
Telephone: (714) 641-5100
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross -Defendant
CITY OF WEST COVINA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ) CASE NOS. KC 013713
BC 083729
Plaintiff, )
STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT
VS.
BKK CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
Defendants.
BKK CORPORATION, a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF WEST COVINA, a municipal
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
DATE: January 16, 1996
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
DEPT: 312
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff City of West Covina and
Defendant. BKK Corporation, by and between, their respective attorneys, that judgment shall
SWIM%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be made and entered herein as provided in the attached Judgment marked as Exhibit "A."
i
DATE: January l7, 1996 RUTAN & TUCKER
LEONARD A. HAMPEL
LAYNE H. MELZER
By:
LEO I AMPEL
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross -
Defendant CITY OF WEST COVINA
DATE: January t 1 , 1996 MACKLIN TATRO
I
B Cc '
E YL MACKLIN
Attorney Defendant/Cross-
Complainant BKK CORPORATION
•
1
2
3
4
5,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23',
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF WEST COVINA, .
Plaintiff,
vs.
BKK CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
BKK CORPORATION, a California
corporation, I
a
vs.
CITY OF WEST COVINA, a municipal
corporation, a d DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
CASE NO. KC 013713
[CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO.
BC 083729, with the Complaint in Case
No. BC 083729 deemed by Court Order a
Cross -Complaint]
JUDGMENT
TRIAL DATE: January 16, 1996
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
DEPT: 312
WHEREAS, this cause came on regularly for trial on January 16, 1996 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 312 of that branch of the above -captioned Court commonly referred to as Central
Civil West, 1 Icated at 600 Commonwealth Street, Los Angeles, California. Leonard A.
Hampel and) yne H. Melzer of Rutan & Tucker appeared as attorneys for Plaintiff and
I Exhibit A
FS2\348\014125.0027\2179335.1 a01/08196
• 0
1
2
3
4
51'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23'I
24
25
26
27
28
Cross -Defendant City of West Covina ("City"). Rene Tatro and Meryl Macklin of Macklin
Tatro appeared as attorneys for Defendant and Cross -Complainant BKK Corporation ("BKK").
WHEREAS, BKK is the owner and operator of a waste disposal facility known as the BKK
landfill located within the City of West Covina and generally on the east side of Azusa
Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet north of Amar Road on approximately 583 acres of land.
WHEREAS,II the City exercises general land use regulatory authority over the landfill and in
k
or around 19621 originally permitted the operation of the BKK landfill pursuant to Unclassified
Use Permit No 71 which has since been revised and amended, but remains the operative
landfill permit.
WHEREAS; on or about November 22, 1985, BKK and the City entered into a writing
denominated a ;Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). The parties dispute the import and
effect of this MOU. The City contends BKK agreed to cease landfill operations pursuant to
the MOU by no later than November 22, 1995. BKK, on the other hand, disputes this
characterization of the MOU and has to date continued to operate the BKK landfill. In order
i
to resolve this and other MOU related disputes, the parties initiated the instant judicial action.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 1993, the City filed its complaint against BKK in the Eastern
District (Case No. KC 013713) seeking among other things specific performance of the MOU.
On June 24, 1993, BKK filed a separate complaint in the Central District (Case No. BC
083729) which among other things challenged the City's attempts to enforce the MOU. These
cases were subsequently consolidated in the Eastern District with the City's complaint serving
as the lead cage, and BKK's complaint designated as a cross -complaint.
WHEREAS, on or about July 26, 1993, BKK filed an answer to the City's complaint. On
January 18, 1994, the City filed an answer to BKK's First Amended Cross -Complaint. Then
on or about January 19, 1995, BKK filed a Second Amended. Cross -Complaint and on
February 2, 1995 the City filed its answer to this Second Amended Cross -Complaint.
Exhibit A
79335.1 a01/08/96
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0*1
26
27
28
WHEREAS,
respective plea(
disclaim any liz
to resolve this 1
BKK and the C
IT IS HERE
permanently
or any other
"Cessation I
Corporation,
operation or
entity succee
acquisition, p
shall refer to 1
including but
currently opei
future operatic
Permit shall li
limitations on
and conduct U
Nothing herei
connected wit
water; 3) rece
and for the pi
Date as neces
IT IS FUR
by way of its
the.contentions of the parties with respect to this dispute are reflected in their
ings. Both parties deny the material allegations of each other's pleadings and
bility accordingly. Nevertheless, BKK and the City have mutually determined
itigation in accordance with the provisions of this judgment. Consequently,
ty have stipulated to the terms of this judgment.
BY ORDERED, ADJUDICATED AND DECREED that BKK shall
Ise accepting any waste for handling, transfer, recycling, disposal, landfilling,
ated activities at the BKK landfill by 1nQ later than September 15, 1996 (the
"). For purposes of this judgment BKK shall refer to the BKK
cluding any and all affiliated persons and entities involved in any fashion in the
,nership of the BKK landfill, including but not limited to any individual or
1g to the right to operate or own the BKK landfill, either by merger,
chase of the landfill property or other means of succession. The BKK landfill
e entirety of the 583 acres owned by BKK within the City of West Covina,
)t limited to those portions of the property devoted to landfill uses, such as the
ting Class III disposal cell and the closed Class I disposal cell, as well as any
disposal cell within the 583 acre site. The BKK landfill Unclassified Use
ewise be revised and/or amended to reflect the Cessation Date and the
arther operations at the BKK landfill reflected herein. The City shall initiate
rse proceedings necessary to so revise or amend the Unclassified Use Permit.
will be interpreted to preclude BKK from 1) processing landfill gas or leachate
past or present operations of the landfill; 2) utilizing reclaimed or recycled
ring without charge from off -site sources non -contaminated soil suitable for,
pose of, final cover; or 4) moving any waste already on site as of the Cessation
Lry for final closure of the landfill.
HER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that BKK shall take nothing
Exhibit A
FS2\348\014125.0027\2179335.1 a01/08/96
I
-q-
5
6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this judgment affects the
i
use and enjoyment of the landfill and adjacent private and public property. As such, this
judgment is intended to and does run with the real property which comprises the BKK landfill.
i
Consequently, this judgment shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of BKK. This
judgment, and/or any other appropriate document reflecting the terms of this judgment, may
be recorded by the City against the BKK landfill property.
i
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all parties shall bear
i
their own costs and attorneys' fees.
f
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that findings of fact,
conclusions of law, statements of decision, notice of entry of judgment and right of appeal are
waived. BKK further waives any right to modify, rescind or set aside this judgment for any
reason whatsoever.
i
I
DATE:
i
j HONORABLE WILLIAM DRAKE
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.
Exhibit A
i
FS2\349\014125-0027\2179335.1 001/08/96
-4-
AGREEMENT
This agreement is to memorialize the understanding reached by BKK Corporation
(`BKK") and the City of West Covina ("City") (collectively the "Parties") regarding
settlement of the dispute involving grading activities on the landfill site which BKK on
the one hand contends it has the rights to conduct, and which the City, on the other hand
contends BKK does not have the right to conduct. In part, by letter agreement executed
February 23, 1993, the parties had placed on hold resolution of the disputes addressed by
that letter agreement and the matters addressed herein.
The parties have now determined to resolve some of their outstanding disputes
concerning the matters addressed herein according to the following terms and conditions:
1. BKK shall conduct mitigation activities as described in
attachments "A" and "B" attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
2. City agrees to allow BKK to conduct the mitigation activities
including grading to complete disposal operations and to facilitate
closure of the landfill site described in attachments "A" and "B"
attached hereto.
3. City agrees the mitigation activities described in attachments "A"
and "B" hereto are not subject to the terms of CEQA or the UUP,
including environmental review under CEQA.
4. BKK agrees that its final closure plan will be subject to
environmental review under CEQA.
5. BKK agrees that any grading of the Northwest Ridgeline, as shown
on attachments "A" and "B" shall be in conjunction with the filling of
the North Stepout area and subsequent development of the site for
recreational or other permitted purposes, and shall be subject to
review and approval by the City, after environmental review under
CEQA. BKK agrees to maintain the existing outward facing slopes of
the North IRidgeline area, by not altering, grading or removing soil
from the existing natural outward facing slopes.
6. This agreement amends by superseding, the aforementioned
February123,1993, letter agreement.
Accep
parties
Date:
Date:
7. In addition to any appropriate remedies at law or in equity, it is
specifically agreed that this agreement shall be enforceable by specific
performance and/or injunctive relief.
8. Should either party bring any action to interpret or enforce the
terms of this agreement, the prevailing party in any such action shall
be entitled to an. award of all costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees. j
9. BKK agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
costs or attorney's fees incurred in defending this agreement or any
activities related thereto from any third -party actions. The parties
shall mutually agree on selection of legal counsel for this purpose.
10. While the parties believe this agreement is enforceable and will
not challenge its legal validity, the enforceability or non -enforceability
of this agreement shall in no way affect the validity of the judgment
being entered relating to BKK ceasing acceptance of waste.
11. This agreement has been jointly drafted by the parties and shall
not be interpreted against either party based upon the drafting of the
agreement!
12. BKK shall allow the City to conduct onsite inspections at any
reasonable, intervals deemed necessary by the City Manager or
designee in order to ensure BKK's compliance with this agreement.
of this agreement is indicated by signature of the
City of West Covina
BKK Corporation
By: Ron astelum
2
•
0
1.
G OF CLASS III PORTION OF THE LANDFILL
i
BKI i shall landscape the Class III portion of the Landfill according to the
i
following criteria. The landscaping will incorporate a variety of trees, shrubs and ground
cover materials that are appropriate for the design of the landfill cover and that will
provide an attractive, dense appearance. Landscaping as defined in this agreement shall
Proceed on each phase of the final cover soil placement. Soil preparation, irrigation
and/or plant installation shall commence within 45 days of completion of placing soil for
each phase of final
completed within S
size; 25% of the
Final details of the
approval, condi
ever. Final installation of irrigation and landscaping shall be
days of commencing installation. 75% of the trees shall be 5 gallon
shall be 15 gallon size or larger. Shrubs shall be 1 gallon size.
ndscaping plan will be submitted to the City by April 1, 1996, for
.approval, or denial. Said plan shall not be inconsistent with the
requirements of State regulatory agencies.
2. LANDSCAPING OF SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY AREAS OF
THE
the Landfill
City (the "sc
FILL SITE.
BKK shall plant trees along the southerly and southeasterly perimeters of
screening plan.
future dense
in conformance with a plan to be submitted and reviewed by the
ing plan"). The City shall approve, deny or conditionally approve the
the type and size of trees to be planted shall be appropriate to provide a
en for residents within 500 to 600 feet of the Landfill property line.
Attachment A 1
BKK shall submit the screening plan to the City within six months of the date of this
Agreement. BKK shall commence implementation of the screening plan within 60 days
of the City's approval of the plan.
3. DUST CONTROL.
BKK shall mitigate any potential dust emissions from graded pads in
confonnance with eI istin "fugitive" dust control regulations and a plan to be
g g g
submitted and revie+wed by the City (the "dust plan"), which may consist, by way of
I
example, of the hydro -seeding of rye grass. The City shall approve, deny or conditionally
approve the dust plan. . Said plan shall be submitted for review and approval b the City
PP P , p PP Y Y
Engineer and Planning Director within 60 days of the date of this Agreement. BKK shall
commence implementation I ntation of the dust plan within 60 days of the City's approval of the
p P Y Y Pp
plan.
4. SCREENING OF OPERATIONS AREA AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BKK shall plant trees and shrubs to provide a dense visual screen of the
administration built g and d operations area from views to the west of the Landfill
p
property in confo i ance with a plan to be submitted and reviewed by the City (the
"administration building plan"). The City shall approve, deny or conditionally approve
the administration building plan. Said plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City within six months of the date of this Agreement. BKK shall commence
implementation of the administration building plan within 60 days of the City's approval
of the plan.
Attachment A 2
5. DRAINA
BKK shall provide a site drainage plan for review and approval prior to
the commencement �of each phase of the conceptual gradingPlan. The objective of the
grading plan for drainage purposes will be to construct drainage facilities, temporary or
permanent as are rjasonably necessary 3to maintain existing drainage capabilities onsite
and at the storm draIin inlet in Azusa Avenue adjacent to the landfill site so longas all
drainage facilities meet generally accepted engineering standards.
6. AZUSA AVIIENUE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
BKK shall submit a screening and landscape plan for the Azusa Avenue
frontage in the event excavation occurs within Area 2 below the elevation shown on the
Conceptual Grading Plan. Said plan shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with
the rough grading plan. The plan shall incorporate an irrigation system and dense shrub,
fencing vines and tree plantings to produce an effective screening of Area 2. The City
I
shall approve, deny or conditionally approve the screening and landscape plan prior to or
in conjunction with the rough grading plan.
Attachment A 3
i • •
GRADING
BKK has the right to grade the areas described on the attached Conceptual
GradingPlan in the following phases. Phase I shall consist of grading in Areas 1 and 2
gp g g
for daily cover within the Class III Landfill or for placement within Areas A and B for the
of final cover ver or a vegetative layer. Phase II shall consist of grading in Areas 1
purposes g Y g g
and 2 for daily cove'r within the Class III Landfill or for placement in Area C for the
purposes of final cover or a vegetative layer. Phase III shall consist of grading in Areas 1
I
and 2 for daily cover within the Class III Landfill or placement in Area D for the
purposes of final cover or a vegetative layer. Phase IV shall consist of grading in Areas 1
and 2 for dailyco e'er within the Class III Landfill or for placement in Area E for the
�
purposes of final cover or a vegetative layer. Phase V of the grading will be in the
I
Northwest Ridgeline area of the Landfill and will be subject to the limitations expressed
in paragraph 5 of the attached Agreement. The above -described phases may proceed
i
concurrently if, in;the sole business judgment of BKK and after notification to the City
Planning Department, the efficient operation of the Landfill and final grading so requires.
i
The final cover/vegetative layer shall consist of a seven and one-half (7.5)
foot deep vegetative soil layer, a one foot deep barrier layer and a two foot deep
foundation layer.
to grading of any ridgeline or outward facing slopes within Areas 1
or 2, BKK shall submit detailed soil quantity calculations for phases I through IV to
demonstrate that adequate soil exists for daily cover and final cover/vegetative layer and a
rough grading plan for phases I through IV showing final pad elevations and design for
Attachment B
slopes. BKK shall also submit a specific description of the sequence of grading and
placement of daily cover and final cover/vegetative layer. Irrespective of the availability
of onsite soil, BKKishallsatisfy the requirements of the rough grading plan without
1
extension of grading activities into the Northwest and North Ridgeline areas.
City 'shall monitor said grading plan to insure compliance by BKK in an
expeditious manner, and in conformance with applicable City regulations. The City shall
approve, deny or conditionally approve the rough grading plan/soil quantity calculations.
In the event BKK requires additional soil for final cover/vegetative cover, BKK may
excavate Area 2 below the elevations shown on the Conceptual Grading Plan subject to
showing said exca i ation on the rough grading plan and providing a screening and
landscape plan for the Azusa Avenue frontage as provided for in Attachment A.
Grading of the Westerly Ridgeline in Area 2 shall not extend further north
than the top of slope shown on the attached Conceptual Grading Plan. The transition
slope to be graded jbetween said top of slope and the new pad at this location shall be
contour graded at a slope not steeper than two horizontal feet to one vertical foot.
Attachment B 2
•
Iff
C ITY O F
lncolpor:ncd 192
January 17, 1996
G
EST CO'V INA
Gary Kovall, General Counsel
BKK Corporation
2210 South Azusa Avenue
West Covina, CA 91791
Re: BKK NORTH AREA GRADING ISSUES
Dear Mr. Kovall:
As BKK has requested, this letter is provided in consideration of BKK's continuing
compliance with the ridgeline standstill agreement dated February 23, 1993, as amended
and superseded on January 17, 1996. The City will not consider the present
configuration of the north step out area (specifically the 1:1 slopes) to be a violation of
the West Covina Municipal Code, the UUP or the Solid Waste Facilities Permit so. long
as:
1. BKK shall furnish a soils engineering or an engineering geology report stating
that the site has been investigated and giving an opinion that the cut slopes will be
stable and not create a hazard to public or private property;
2. BKK remedies any condition on the site which may occur in the north step out
area (such as slope failure after stabilization) which would constitute a dangerous
condition or public nuisance in the opinion of the City Engineer or City Manager;
3. BKK shall maintain security fencing around the site including the north step out
area.
The City anti
part of the de
Sincerely,
Patrick Glover
City Engineer
that the north step out area will be addressed at some future point as
.ent of the site.
1444 West Garvey Avenue, Post Office Box 1440; West Covina, California 91793 Telephone 818/814-8400