The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09191989 - 2.4 2-®04 TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Contra Director of Community Development C,WIa DATE: ��/ September 13 , 19$9 1I1� SUBJECT: Report on Solid Waste Pod Transfer System and Foam Cover Use at Landfills SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Accept report from Community . Development Director on use of pod transport methods for transferring solid waste and the use of foam in place of soil cover at sanitary landfills. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND On August 29, 1989, the Board requested staff to report on environmental concerns related .to the possible use of transfer pods for household garbage and the use of foam instead of soil to cover solid waste at sanitary landfills. Pod Transfer System Waste Management Inc. has proposed to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District that a "pod" system be used to transport waste from one of their service areas within the San Ramon Valley directly to Altamont Landfill in Alameda County. A presentation was made to the Central San Board of Directors on August 24. County staff was in attendance. The pod system consists of a special type of compactor truck which will serve residential areas. The compacted refuse on the trucks is contained in pods that are removable. A full, compacted pod is then loaded onto a trailer with two other pods for haul to the landfill. Three full pods are equivalent to one standard 2U to 25-ton transfer vehicle. Empty pods replace full pods on the. collection CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO NA ION O BO D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S1: ACTION OF BOARD ON September 19, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X .OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT '— AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Orig. Dept. Community Develop. ATTESTED County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Solid Waste Commission SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Environmental Health M382/7-83 BYE "��,� ,DEPUTY G. vehicles. The switching of pods can take place on virtually any surface, including a street. No separate cranes are necessary for loading and unloading the pods. There is no facility or yard necessary to aggregate the waste; therefore, a transfer station is not needed. It is important to note that most commercial wastes and self-haulers would not be served by the pod system, and a transfer station would still be necessary for these types of wastes. Waste Management has proposed that a pilot study commence prior to the end of the year. The Central San Board of Directors endorsed the pilot program and directed their staff to closely monitor the pod system to determine if it would be economically feasible as an alternative to a transfer station. Although the pod system may result in a cost savings because a transfer station is not necessary, there is a question as to how the pod system affects recycling and the segregation of hazardous waste. Both recycling and inspection for hazardous wastes are planned to take place at a transfer station. Regarding recy- cling, it is not expected that much residential garbage will be recycled at the transfer station. Most transfer station recy- cling programs tend to concentrate on commercial loads. This is especially true if the residential area already has a curbside collection program, as will the entire San Ramon Valley by the end of this year. We would, therefore, conclude that the pod system would have a minimal impact on the type of current recycling programs planned. However, future resource recovery technologies at transfer stations may include processing of residential solid waste. The issue of household hazardous waste and possible hazardous waste contamination of the refuse may be more difficult to mitigate. Screening for hazardous materials in the waste stream is planned to be done at transfer stations where a tipping floor offers a relatively easy way for checking for hazardous materials. Waste Management representatives stated that a comparable checking program will occur at Altamont Landfill, where wastes from pods will be spread on the ground at the landfill to be checked for hazardous materials, equivalent to what would take place at a transfer station. If the program is truly equivalent to one that would take place at the transfer station, the issue of hazardous contamination of the refuse is manageable. The pod system does raise some interesting policy issues. If a large section of the waste stream is handled.-- by. the pod system and does not go to a transfer station, the economies of scales for a transfer station would be adversely affected. Additional- ly, assessments for solid waste programs, including closure costs, may be made at transfer stations. Unless an alternative method of collecting these fees from vehicles that may go directly to the landfills is developed, a loss of revenue may result. Also note that the pod system is a proprietary system, licensed to Waste Management, and is not available to other collectors. If the pilot program does commence, County staff, including staff from the County Health Services Department acting as the Local Enforcement Agency, will closely monitor the operations to ensure that the process meets all health and safety requirements and to determine if any permits are needed by the County for this new system of operation. Staff is working with the California Waste Management Board to determine if this type of transfer process will require a Solid Waste Facility Permit. Foam Cover Waste Management Inc. proposed to use a synthetic foam as an alternative to daily cover soil at the proposed Marsh Canyon Landfill. The foam product is commercially available and is being used at some landfills in California. The consultants who are preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Canyon Landfill have analyzed the use of the foam and have made some recommendations as to conditions and mitigation measures the County should consider if foam is planned to be used at a land- 3. fill. Most of the concerns have to do with the handling of the hazardous materials that make up the foam and the use of the foam in wet weather. However, recently Waste Management has informed the County and the EIR consultants that they now do not intend to use the foam at the Marsh Canyon Landfill or intend to use foam on a more limited basis. They are intending to excavate deeper on the landfill footprint to secure additional daily cover material. If foam is proposed to be used at any landfill in the County, staff will require a detailed analysis of all impacts of the use of foam. Concerns addressed will include the handling of the hazardous materials that are ingredients for the foam, the leachability of the foam in the landfill, and air quality impacts from emissions from the foam. It is important to note that while there may be some environmen- tal- concerns with the use of foam, the additional volume achieved at the landfill due to the use of the foam is significant. Approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total landfill capacity is made up of daily cover soil. The manufacturers of the foam claim that the volume of the foam in place at the landfill is negligi- ble, resulting in a 10 to 20 percent increase in the life of the landfill. dBO/jn jl28 :pod.brd