Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01241984 - 2.7 . ` TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS7 FROM: ., J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS.DIRECTOR Contra DATE: January 24, 1984 Costa SUBJECT: Acosta Group Proposal for a Co-Compost Facility in Central Contra Costa County Specific Requests or Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION 1. Refer the Acosta Group proposal for a co-composting facility to the ad hoc committee which is considering development of a central/east County waste-to-energy project. 2. The film presentation by the Acosta Group be made to the ad hoc committee with Board members notified of when the presentation is to be made: BACKGROUND On November 15, 1983, the Board referred to the Public Works Department a proposal/report from the Acosta Group on a co-composting facility for Contra Costa County. On December 20, 1983, the 'Board referred to the Public Works Department another request from .the Acosta Group for time on the Board' s agenda to show a film describing the co-compost process and the establishment of a task force to further study co-composting. The Acosta Group had previously given a presentation to the Solid Waste Commission and the Board on June 22, 1983, on the co-composting process. The proposal is for a facility to co-compost 850 tons per day of sewage sludge and solid waste. The co-compost process is highly mechanized and most of the process is enclosed in a large building. Acosta has estimated the capital cost to be approximately $47 million. This process can be considered an alternative to waste-to-energy projects, but certain unprocessable wastes would be disposed of in the sanitary landfill. The City of Los Angeles requested proposals for a co-composting facility. The Acosta Group was one of four proposals received. After evaluation of the proposals by City staff, the Chief Administrative Officer recommended to the City Council that all proposals be rejected for reasons mainly having to do with lack of proof of markets for the compost. The City Council decided to allow the proposers additional time to provide additional information on markets. The additional marketing information is expected in April, 1984. Our analysis shows that if the compost can be, sold as envisioned by the Acosta Group, the co-composting proposal is economically comparable to waste-to-energy projects and the cost of new sanitary landfill sites. If the compost cannot be sold, the co-composting facility is significantly higher than other alternatives. This conclusion is essentially the same conclusion reached by the City of Los Angeles staff. Continued on attachment: x yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommenda ,.'on o"oayfl Committee _ Approve Other: Signature(s): a,1r111117 Action of Board on: a2 Approved as Recommended , -Other t- The Board also approved the five recommendations listed on .Exhibit A, and added Item 6 as follo follows: ` .6. The program should be compared with other waste programs. Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain:, Attested 62 Orig. Div.: Public Works - EC . OLSSU , COUNTY CLERK AND cc: County Administrator EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD Acosta Group (via EC) Solid Waste Commission (via EC) DBO:BDOR.Acosta.10.t1 By DEPUTY 331 There. are reasons to be concerned about the marketablility of the compost product. The mail concern about the marketing of the co-compost is the presence of heavy metals. The heavy metals tend to accumulate in the soil and are found to be present in plants grown in soils containing heavy metals. Based on existing State and Federal regulations concerning land disposal of sewage sludge, there is reason to believe the co-compost produced will not be able to be used on food chain crops. There also appears to be a lack of markets for compost. This might be overcome by an aggressive marketing program, but there are no guarantees of the success of such a marketing program. The Acosta Group proposes to show a film to the Board and establish a task force to further consider the proposal. The co-composting proposal would be most feasible for the central and east County, in that the west County is well along in developing a waste-to-energy project which would consume all the waste in the west County area. An ad hoc committee of central and east- County representatives have been meeting over a year to consider developing a waste-to-energy project. The committee is currently waiting for the Acme Fill Corporation to complete a feasibility study of resource recovery alternatives ,for the committee. The ad hoc committee studying the central and east County waste-to-energy project is the appropriate body to consider the Acosta Group's co-composting proposal . The County does not franchise garbage collection and therefore does not control any solid waste necessary to commit to a co-composting facility. The cities and sanitary districts which are repre- sented on the ad hoc committee do control solid waste and would need to be integrally involved in the development of a co-composting facility. Another consideration is that the County does not have the funding necessary to lead an independent task force to study co-composting. 332 v MOTION A CO-COMPOST PROPOSAL FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 . That the firm of Acosta & Associates, Inc. , as recommended by the Public Works Director, meet with the Ad Hoc Commission on the Central and East County Waste to Energy_ projects;_and their alternatives, during the next thirty to forty-five days.; 2. That the firm of .Acosta & Associates, Inc. and the Ad Hoc Commission report jointly to the Board of Supervisors at the end of the forty-five day period regarding further recommended ' action by this Board; 3. That the CAO, the County Counsel, the Director of Public Works and all other County Departments deemed necessary by the Board, meet with Acosta & Associates, Inc. and the Ad Hoc Commission to provide all assistance necessary to finalize the Report to the Board; 4. That the Board of Supervisors encourage and request all interested private sector parties involved in the collection and management of household refuse to attend and participate in .these meetings; 5. That the Board of Supervisors request that all approriate parties involved in the processing of ,waste water treatment plants and sewer sludge in the Central and East County area attend and participate in these meetings; 333