Environmental Protection Corporation, Eastside Landfill Site, Explanation of Significant Differences
4 Documents in Project
Summary
SCH Number
2007051148
Lead Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Document Title
Environmental Protection Corporation, Eastside Landfill Site, Explanation of Significant Differences
Document Type
NOD - Notice of Determination
Received
Posted
4/26/2019
Document Description
The project consists of modification of the materials used to cap the impoundments at the Environmental Protection Corporation, Eastslde Landfill Site (Site), as documented in the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). The ESD
proposes closing the impoundments by installing a structured geomembrane (Closure Turf) cap instead of a monoflll soil cap. The proposed changes to the remedial actions are consistent with a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by DTSC in 2008. The 2008 RAP proposed to remediate the Site by installing a monofill cap over the surface impoundments recording a deed restriction and conducting long-term monitoring. Long-term monitoring Includes monitoring of the cap, groundwater, surface water, and air emissions, along with maintaining site security, The fundamental cleanup activities
proposed In the ESD remain consistent with remedial actions approved In the RAP.
*see nod for more details.
Contact Information
Name
Thomas Tse
Agency Name
DTSC
Contact Types
Lead/Public Agency
Phone
Location
Counties
Kern
Other Location Info
Round Mountain Road, about 15 miles northeast of Bakersfield
Notice of Determination
Approving Agency
DTSC
Approving Agency Role
Lead Agency
Approved On
Determinations
(1) The project will have a significant impact on the environment
No
(2a) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
No
(2b) A Mitigated or a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
Yes
(2c) An other document type was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
No
(3) Mitigated measures were made a condition of the approval of the project
Yes
(4) A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project
N/A
(5) A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project
No
(6) Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
Yes