Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08211984 - 2.2 a.a THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 21 , 1984 , by the following vote: . AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden , Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Policy Statements Following approval of the Solid Waste Management Policy Statements , Ted J . Nelson , 25 Emerson Avenue , Crockett , appeared before the Board and presented comments relative to certain sections of the aforementioned policy statements . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid comments are REFERRED to Public Works Environmental Control staff to review for possible inclusion in a future revision to the policy statements . cc: Public Works Director Environmental Control County Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown., ATTESTED: J.R. OLSS , COUNTS' CLERK, and ex ofticlo Cleric of the Boars! By 'Do" 00233 TO: )BOARD OF SUPERVISORS } FROM: Phil Batcheloe,County Administrator CO�tra Costa DATE: August 13 , 1984 coufty SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Policy Statements SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt proposed policy statements on solid waste management. BACKGROUND On May 1, 1984 the Public Works Director, in response to an inquiry by Supervisor Powers, submitted a memorandum report to your Board concerning responsibility for solid waste disposal projects. As a result of your consideration of this matter on May 8 , 1984 , you asked that .the_.County Administrator formulate policy statements on solid waste management to guide the county. For this purpose the Public Works Department prepared a series of draft statements which were reviewed by all concerned county departments and a revised draft prepared. Accordingly, the attached policies are submitted for your review and approval. �.J CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON August 21, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X APPROVED as amended to reflect monitoring role of the County with respect to the West County Agency Waste to Energy project. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE L'`>'' ra. t AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Co. Administrator ATTESTED Public Works Director J.R. OL ON, COUNTY CLERK (Environmental Health) AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD Planning County Counsel M362/7-83 BY DEPUTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY STATEMENTS ontra Costa County Board of Supervisors (August 1984) I. BOARD RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY AS STATED IN LAW The Board of Supervisors has authority to regulate solid waste management through planning, permitting, and enforcement powers. The Board also has authority to franchise solid waste collection and to operate collection and disposal systems, although there is no State mandate for the Board to provide these services. The Board's planning authority comes from the enactment of Senate Bill 5 in 1972 which created the California Waste Management Board and requires each county to develop a County Solid Waste Management Plan. All solid waste activities in the County must be consistent with the Plan. In Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors is responsible for maintaining and implementing the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Revisions or amendments to the Plan also must be approved by the cities and the California Waste Management Board. Any solid waste activities not consistent with the Plan must be amended into the Plan. In this respect, the Board of Supervisors has control over solid waste practices in the County. The Board of Supervisors has authority to regulate solid waste disposal sites through the land use permit process, assuming that the landfill is located in an unincorporated area. The project may also require a County General Plan amendment. The Board of Supervisors also has responsibility for enforcing solid waste regulations pertaining to storage, transport, and disposal of solid waste. The County Department of Health Services has been formally designated the Local Enforcement Agency for solid waste matters throughout the County. The County Health Services Department also has general authority over solid waste matters which concern health and safety. The Board has the authority to franchise solid waste collection in unincorporated areas. To date, the Board has chosen not to do so and sanitary districts have pre-empted County franchising in unincorporated areas within their jurisdiction. There are some areas not within sanitary districts or cities which are unf ranchised. The County can also operate its own solid waste collection system and also operate a disposal site. The County has chosen not to do either, and has consciously decided to have these tasks done by the private sector. In addition to the functions listed above, the Board can exert considerable leadership in solid waste matters if it chooses to do so, even though it is not required to do so by law. As the countywide body responsible for solid waste planning, the Board can play a key role in shaping how solid waste is managed throughout the County. The Board has funding sources and staff resources to provide technical information and coordination to parties involved in solid waste matters. The Board can organize cities, sanitary districts, and private industry to develop specific projects or studies. The Board can also decide to become involved in the actual development and operations of solid waste projects. 00235 Recommendation 1. The Board state its intent to go beyond its minimum responsibilities for solid waste planning and become more active and provide leadership in solid waste matters by implementing the recommendations in this report. DBO:cl swm.pol.I.t8 00236 II. GENERAL GOALS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Historically, solid waste has been handled by a collection vehicle collecting waste from homes and businesses, direct transportation to a landfill, and disposal at the landfill . In recent years, variations to the simple means of collection/ transport/disposal have been proposed. . Some of these variations are: source separation of recyclables and compostible materials, transfer stations, waste processing facilities, and waste to energy projects. Even with the variations mentioned above, the basic need to collect the waste and dispose of waste in sanitary landfills still exists. Any change in the existing method of collection, direct transport, and landfill disposal must be cost effective. This means that a new variation must be compared to the existing method of handling solid waste and prove to be cost effective to the consumers. This analysis should look at long-term costs and benefits in addition to immediate costs and benefits. Other non-monetary benefits and costs, such as, environmental concerns and operational considerations, should also be included in a cost-benefit analysis. All solid waste handling must be conducted in a way to avoid hazards to health. Projects must also have a minimum impact on the environment through adequate pollution control measures. Conservation of natural resources, through methods such as recycling, composting, and energy recovery, are benefits and should be included in any cost-benefit analysis. Since there are many agencies in Contra Costa County involved in franchising solid waste collection and have some responsibility for seeing that solid waste is disposed of properly, there is a need for coordination between the agencies. It is possible that savings can be made through coordination and cooperation in developing solid waste management systems. Recommendations 1. The Board state that the foremost goal of solid waste management is to collect and dispose of solid waste in a cost-effective, coordinated, healthful, and environmentally sound manner. 2. Any variations to the basic collection/direct transport/landfill disposal system must be shown to be cost effective (including long-term cost consi- derations), environmentally sound, and operationally feasible. DBO:cl swm.pol . II.t8 00237 III. CITY AND SANITARY DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES A key responsibility of cities and sanitary districts in solid waste management is for franchising solid waste collection service. All incorporated cities are franchised. Sanitary districts franchise collection in areas not within cities, but within their jurisdiction, although the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District franchises on behalf of several cities. There are some unincorporated areas that are not franchised. Each city and sanitary district handles administration of the franchise differently. One part of franchising is the setting of rates for collection service. The establishment of a garbage service collection rate includes the cost to collect and dispose of the garbage, but franchising agencies do not have any control over disposal costs (disposal costs are unregulated) . The law isnot clear as to who controls or owns the waste after it is relin- quished by the generator. Most assume that the collectors assume ownership of the waste once it is picked up from the generators, however, some jurisdic- tions have established control of the waste for resource recovery purposes. Franchising jurisdictions in Contra Costa County have the authority to direct where solid waste from their jurisdiction is disposed. In most cases, this authority has been written into the franchise agreements or ordinances. Franchising responsibilities must be considered in the development of changes in the way solid waste is handled ( i .e. , recycling, waste-to-energy, etc. ) . Variations to the traditional disposal system change the cost of handling solid waste and, in most cases, this cost will be reflected in the waste generator' s garbage collection bill. Since cities and sanitary districts control rate increases, cities and sanitary districts will have some control over approval of implementation of such programs. Cities and sanitary districts are involved in solid waste management through their representation on the Solid Waste Commission and are directly involved in specific project planning committees, such as for waste-to-energy projects. Cities also have joint responsibility with the County to implement the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Recommendations 1. The Board stress the role and importance of cities and sanitary districts in the responsibility for solid waste. management. 2. The Board encourage direct involvement of cities and sanitary districts in solid waste projects. 3. The Board provide periodic update reports to cities and sanitary districts on a regular basis, via the Solid Waste Commission. One way of doing this may be a bi-monthly newsletter. DBO:cl swm.po1 . I11 .t8 00 IV. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT This section discusses how solid waste is collected and transported to the disposal point. Disposal sites are covered in the next section. The collection and transport part of the solid waste system is regulated through the franchising authority of cities and sanitary districts. The solid waste stream can be divided into five basic categories : residential , commercial , industrial , demolition, and hazardous. Residential waste makes up approximately 36% of the total wastestream. Commercial waste, meaning waste from businesses such as stores and restaurants, makes up approximately 24% of the total wastestream. Non-hazardous industrial waste, from sources such as factories, makes up approximately 20% of the wastestream. Demolition waste, from destruction of old buildings and land clearing, amounts to approximately 15% of the total wastestream. Sewage sludge amount to 5% of the wastestream. Hazardous wastes are usually handled separately and disposed of at special hazardous waste facilities, however, some specified less hazardous wastes are permitted to be mixed with non-hazardous wastes in designated sanitary landfills, such as occurs at the old Acme Fill. The main concern of the Board should be the largest wastestream which is residential wastes. This wastestream has the most direct impact on the citizens of the County and the residential wastestream is most subject to resource recovery options. It is important to note that presently approximately 85% of a typical residential garbage bill goes to collection and transport of the waste while only 15% of the bill is for cost to dispose of the waste. This means that the total garbage bill is less sensitive to the cost to dispose of the waste than it is to the cost to collect and transport the waste. Innovations in collection and transport are being tried. Concord Disposal Service has given residents an option of a semi-automated collection service where residents are given a 90-gallon (approximately two to three times as large as a typical garbage can) container mounted on wheels which is placed on the curb on collection days by the resident. The container is emptied by mechanical lifts into the garbage collection vehicle. This type of collection system, along with fully- automated collection systems, has proven to be lower in cost in many areas throughout the country. Transfer stations are another method of potentially reducing trans- portation costs. A "rule of thumb" is that a transfer station becomes economically attractive with hauls over 20 miles one way: Areas with hauls of this magnitude should closely examine the economics of transfer stations as a means of reducing transport costs. Recommendations 1. The Board make cities and sanitary, districts aware of how changes in the traditional solid waste system impacts the rates they regulate for solid waste collection. 2. The Board encourage cities and sanitary districts; to consider innovations such as semi-automated and automated collection 'and transfer stations, and a sharing of results of these studies among the franchising agencies. DBO:cl swm.pol . IU.t8 00239 V. EXISTING AND FUTURE LANDFILLS There are three existing landfills in Contra Costa County: Acme Fill Corporation near Martinez, West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond, and the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill (GBF) near Antioch. The Acme landfill has received permits for a 97-acre expansion at the landfill which will give Acme three years of capacity. There are other (non-wetland) areas that have a potential to be filled, but the Acme Fill Corporation has not expressed its intention to expand in the other areas beyond the 97-acre expansion. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill has capacity from its existing fill area to approximately 1992 - 2005. A 75-acre adjacent area which is wetlands could be filled if permits could be acquired from various agencies. Given the present political and regulatory climate concerning filling of the Bay and wetlands, it is unlikely that this permission will be granted. Therefore, for planning purposes, it is not assumed' that this area will be filled. The Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill will soon be submitting a revised closure/closing plan proposing an increase in the capacity of the landfill from their previously submitted and approved closure plan. This new increase will give the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill capacity to approximately 1994. This change in their closure plan is consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. There are a few potential landfills being proposed as replacements for Acme Fill when Acme reaches capacity. The Board has authorized a study of a General Plan Amendment for the "Kirker Pass" site proposed by a business interest. The owners of the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill have purchased a potential landfill site south of the existing landfill . A request for a General Plan Amendment is expected soon. The Acme Fill Corporation has stated they are searching for a new landfill site also. The previously proposed "Bettencourt" site has been abandoned. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the County have started a landfill siting study which would evaluate the entire County for potential landfill sites. There also may be other landfill site proponents developing proposals that the staff is not aware of. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , with its 9 to 21 year capacity does not need to immediately concern itself with developing a replacement landfill site. The central County requires immediate attention for developing replacement site( s) . An amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan to include a new landfill siting schedule for the replacement of Acme Fill is being developed. This Plan amendment will develop a plan which recognizes the shortened capacity of Acme Fill. The Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to order a new landfill site be developed, unless the Board is willing to develop a landfill itself. The Board only has authority to grant permits to a proposed landfill and find that the landfill is in conformance with the County Solid Waste Management Plan, and is consistent with its General Plan and meets the requirements of its land development ordinances. The Board can take a strong advocacy role in encouraging others to develop landfills, but the only "enforcement" action they can take is to "threaten" to develop its own landfill if the Board's prescribed schedule is not met. A more cooperative approach may be for a public/private partnership in developing 00240 a landfill where local government could provide the site while a private entity operates the landfill . This approach would require a significant amount of funding from local government. The Board will soon be faced with making decisions on future landfill sites. The Board will have to determine what criteria it will use to approve one or more landfill sites. Another issue concerning solid waste disposal is the import of solid waste from other counties into Contra Costa County. The Solid Waste Commission has proposed a policy statement on imported solid waste for Board consideration. The policy statement requires that any new import of solid waste be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors for conformance with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. In considering Plan consistency, the Board should consider such criteria as the remaining capacity in County landfills, the impact on County residents, and economic mitigation proposed. County Counsel has informed the Board that an "import surcharge" cannot be assessed on imported solid wastes, however, if the party requesting the import is willing to voluntarily pay such a surcharge, the surcharge could be accepted. Recommendations 1. The import of solid waste from Berkeley after mid-1985 should be reviewed by the Board as a new import of solid waste. 2. The County Solid Waste Management Plan be amended to include a new schedule for a successor site(s) for Acme Fill . The Board should provide leadership by vigorously encouraging the meeting of this schedule. The new site(s) may be capable of serving the East County also. 3. The Board encourage development of landfill proposals to ensure that at least one new landfill is developed. Staff should be directed to work closely with those proposing landfills to ensure that they are aware of all County requirements. 4. The Board direct staff to develop guidelines which the Board can consider when reviewing applications for landfill sites. 5. The Board state that it is the Board's policy that imports into the County share costs for the County's solid waste planning and enforcement program through payment of tonnage fees as currently assessed and provide other economic mitigations according to an approved policy statement on imported solid waste. DBO:cl swm.pol.V.t8 00241 VI. RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION This section discusses waste reduction and resource recovery techniques such as recycling, composting, and waste to energy. The report entitled "Solid Waste Management Alternatives" developed by the Solid Waste Commission and accepted by the Board of Supervisors on February 7, 1984, provides details on resource recovery technologies in terms of their impacts on the wastestream and cost. One of the key items in the Alternatives Report was to introduce the concept of assigning a value to space in existing landfills and assigning credit for not using that space to projects which divert waste from landfills. This concept is based on the fact that when existing landfills close, the cost to dispose at the replacement landfill will be higher. There is a savings by extending the life of the existing landfills as long as possible in order to avoid paying the higher cost of new landfills. The value saved by extending the landfill lives should be credited to resource recovery projects in a cost-benefit analysis. This amount of credit will differ depending on the capacity of the landfill in the service area and assumptions made concerning where new landfills will be. For recycling, the Alternatives Report considers residential curbside collection of recyclables as having the greatest impact on the solid wastestream of the recycling programs considerdd. The report concludes that curbside collection will cost residents an additional 40 to 75 cents per month. A curbside collection program can be expected to reduce the total solid wastestream to landfills about two to four percent. Other types of recycling such as buy-back centers and drop-off centers may be more economical , but provide a significantly smaller amount of reduction to the wastestream. For composting, the report encourages small scale composting at the landfills of vegetative matter that has already been brought separately. The preliminary economic analysis of composting shows that composting can be done at a price which is close to the cost to dispose of compostible waste by landfilling. Additional benefits to landfill operators can be obtained by considering the value of the product for use at the landfill and the extension of the life of the landfill from this diversion. A higher level of composting can be obtained by collecting garden waste separately from residences. This will create a higher volume of compostible materials at a higher cost. A market would have to be found for the compost product to make this larger scale composting project econo- mically feasible. Marketing concerns also impact proposals for composting sewage sludge and solid waste (co-composting) . For waste to energy projects, the report notes there are no plants in operation in California, therefore, there is no specific data on project cost. It is estimated that the cost of disposal at these projects will be between $15 and $30 per ton compared to existing landfill disposal fees of $5-$10/ton. The cost of disposing at waste to energy projects must be compared to the cost of disposal at landfills. Even the $30 per ton tipping fee may be comparable to the cost to dispose at a distant landfill if a transfer station is needed. The report defines waste reduction as reducing the amount of solid waste entering the wastestream by measures such as reducing packaging on consumer goods, changing consumer purchasing habits, and measures such as the container deposit legislation (bottle bills ) . The effects on the reduction of the wastestream are unquanti- QQ4,4l4 fiable for most waste reduction measures. There have been attempts to quantify the effects of bottle bills. It has been estimated that if a statewide bottle bill was enacted, the solid wastestream could be reduced two to five percent, in the same order of magnitude as a curbside recycling program. Recommendations 1. Encourage the use of. the Solid Waste Management Alternatives Report by those interested in developing or analyzing resource recovery projects. 2. Continue to make staff available to provide technical assistance to those planning resource recovery projects. 3. Take an active role in developing resource recovery projects by: A. Encouraging cities and sanitary districts to implement curbside recycling programs with the understanding that there will be additional costs to residents at this time, but long-term savings can be realized. B. Cooperating with to the West County Agency in developing its waste to energy project. C. Requesting that landfill operators start pilot vegetative waste composting projects or justify why composting is not feasible for them. OBO:cl swm.pol .VI.t8 00243 VII. ENFORCEMENT The County Department of Health Services-Environmental Health Division has been designated as the Local Enforcement Agency (as provided for in State law) , for Contra Costa County. The Local Enforcement Agency is responsible for day to day enforcement of landfills and administering the Solid Waste Facilities (operating) permit. There are also other State agencies involved in enforcement at landfills. The Regional Water Quality Control Board enforces its regulations and permit concerning water quality protection. The State Department of Health Services is involved in permitting and enforcing regulations if landfills accept hazardous wastes. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is involved in landfill permitting and enforcement. The County Health Department' s program for enforcement includes regulation of storage and transport of solid waste in addition to regulating landfills. The Local Enforcement Agency responds to complaints about solid waste being stored improperly on properties and inspects solid waste collections vehicles on a regular basis. Almost all of the Local Enforcement Agency's budget goes toward storage regulation rather than landfill regulation. Solid waste storage problems continue to be a major problem in certain areas of the County. Improper storage and illegal dumping create health hazards as well as aesthetic problems. The County Department of Health Services and the Public Works Department have proposed an innovative program for problem areas which requires the County contracting for solid waste collection, collecting service fees on the tax bill , and requiring collection companies to collect all waste put out by residents. The idea behind this concept is that residents would have no reason not to fully utilize the service and, therefore, eliminate storage problems and reduce illegal dumping. This proposal was not accepted by the Solid Waste Commission and the Board for various reasons . In its place, a mandatory collection ordinance has been proposed. Implementation of this ordinance is being considered by the Board's Internal Operations Committee. Another important issue is the enforcement of disposal sites. With several agencies responsible for enforcing different parts of the law, there are some times misunderstandings about which agencies are responsible for enforcing various parts of the law. There is also a public perception, particularly in the case of Acme Fill, that enforcement by various agencies is lax. Recommendations 1. Request that the County Department of Health Services acting as the Local Enforcement Agency, monitor other agencies' enforcement actions. The Local Enforcement Agency should be fully aware of the status of other agencies' permit requirements and the landfills' compliance. The Local Enforcement Agency can then be the County's source of information concerning the landfills' compliance with all regulations. DBO:cl swm.pol .VII.t8 00244 VIII. HAZARDOUS WASTE This report considers hazardous waste along with solid waste issues because there is a clear relationship between the two types of waste. In the case of the Acme Fill landfill (the 125-acre parcel ), some specified hazardous wastes are permitted to be mixed with solid waste in the landfill . Also, hazardous waste sites are adjacent to landfills at the West Contra Costa Sanitary landfill and Acme Fill ( IT Corporation treatment facility). Many industries in the County process and/or dispose of hazardous wastes on their own property. The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes a section on hazardous waste which has been approved by the State Department of Health Services and is the only official County plan for hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are regulated principally by the State Department of Health Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is involved in regulating hazardous waste facilities for water quality concerns. An important issue for Contra Costa County is a determination of which department in County government is responsible for hazardous waste management. Presently the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Health Services, Public Works, and the County Administrator' s Office are all involved to some extent in hazardous waste management. No specific department or individual has been charged with overall coordination of County efforts. A Hazardous Waste Task Force has been formed in the County to discuss hazardous waste issues. There is also legislation pending which may put requirements on local government to address hazardous waste issues. Recommendation 1. Request that the Hazardous Waste Task Force recommend an appropriate role for County staff in a hazardous waste management program. DBO:cl swm.pol .VIII.T8 0024' IX. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION There is presently no official program for public awareness about solid waste issues. However, over the past several years the solid waste "problem" in Contra Costa County has been heavily covered by the media. There is a growing awareness of the need for landfills and resource recovery among the populace of Contra Costa County. There is no systematic means to solicit public participation on solid waste matters. Only during review of specific projects, such as updating the County Solid Waste Management Plan or a landfill expansion, is there an opportunity for public participation. The monthly Solid Waste Commission meetings are open to the public, but there is only moderate interest from the public in monitoring the Commission's activities. In order to increase public awareness and public participation in solid waste matters, a part-time public awareness/participation coordinator could be hired to develop public awareness materials and to conduct informational/participation meetings. However, this entails a significant amount of funding which is not available at this time. This type of public awareness coordinator would be very beneficial to project proponents of resource recovery and landfill projects. Recommendation 1. The Board request the Solid Waste Commission to prepare a bi-monthly newsletter- type publication summarising solid waste activities in the County for distri- bution to interested groups. DBO:cI swm.pol.IX.t8 00246 9 X. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT FORMS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Board of Supervisors is the official Solid Waste Management Agency for Contra Costa County to prepare and administer the County Solid Waste Management Plan on behalf of all the cities in the county. This designation was made in conformance to the County' s first Solid Waste Management Plan approved in 1977. The Board appointed the Solid Waste Commission to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on solid waste matters. There are also groups developing or planning special solid waste projects such as waste to energy projects. The West County Agency is developing a waste to energy project in the west County area. The Ad Hoc Central County Waste to Energy Planning Committee (now defunct, but will be reconstituted in some form to provide input to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/County study) was contemplating a similar type project for the central County area. These two groups exist independently of the Board of Supervisors and the Solid Waste Commission. The County Public Works Department, Planning Department, and Health Services Department are also involved in solid waste management as staff to the Board of Supervisors and the Solid Waste Commission. Due to the different bodies involved in solid waste activities in the County, there is a perception that these solid waste efforts are not coordinated. There is also a perception that leadership is lacking from the Board of Supervisors on solid waste issues. In addition, when regional, state, and federal agencies become involved in solid waste management in Contra Costa County because of their regulatory or permitting authority, coordination appears even more dispersed. The reality of the situation is that the Board of Supervisors has limited authority to control the development of specific solid waste projects, unless the Board is willing to develop the projects itself. The Board has authority to approve permits and determine consistency with County plans, but does not have the authority to order other public or private entities to develop specific solid waste projects. The Solid Waste Commission also has limited authority because the Commission is only an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and cannot act on :its own to develop and implement specific projects. Another reason for the development of resource recovery projects independent of the Board and Commission is the fact that resource recovery projects usually serve only specified regions of the County and, therefore, it is appropriate that jurisdictions in these areas be directly involved in developing their project. Due to these limitations, it is appropriate for projects to be developed separately from the Board of Supervisors and the Solid Waste Commission as are the two waste to energy projects. Another consideration concerning the Board's participation in solid waste management is the limited funding available for the Board's staff. The Public Works Department currently receives funding for administering the County Solid Waste Management Plan through a tonnage fee assessed to landfills. These fees can only be used for functions related to the Solid Waste Management Plan and specifically not for implementation of resource recovery projects. If the Board were to direct staff to become more actively involved in solid waste matters, additional funding would have to be provided. There is clearly a broad range for the Board to become involved solid waste issues. This spectrum ranges from the Board si;�ply keeping track of the various solid waste projects and acting only when asked to approve permits and determine conformity to County plans. On the other end of the spectrum, the Board can 00247 Y actively develop and fund projects. A more reasonable role for the Board to play, given the limitations of funding, is for the Board to become involved with the projects by participating at an appropriate level. An example of County participation is the Central. Contra Costa Sanitary District- /County study concerning landfill siting and resource recovery. The County will be providing funds for County staff participation along with funding from the Sanitary District for consultants and district staff participation. The Board's staff can also provide limited assistance to projects, such as providing technical information and participating on project development committees. The Board presently does not have the financial capability to become directly involved in implementation projects; therefore, it is appropriate that other . agencies independent of the Board continue to develop implementation projects such as waste-to-energy. The Board can still monitor and assist, in a limited manner, on these types of projects. Recommendation 1. Board should state its intent to become involved in solid waste projects and offer an appropriate level of staff assistance to project proponents. 2. The Board should be briefed on a regular basis on County solid waste matters by the Solid Waste Commission and County staff. DBO:cl swm.pol.X.t8 00248