HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10231984 - IO.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
't`ra
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEECoS+a
DATE: October 15, 1984 C40Urlt)y
SUBJECT: Correspondence from Solid Waste Commission and
Position on West County Waste-to-Energy Plant
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . In regard to the letter from the Solid Waste Commission concerning possible modifica-
tions to the Solid Waste Management Plan process in Contra Costa County, the
Committee intends to meet with the Solid Waste Commission and Technical Advisory
Committee on November 19, 1984, at 10:30 a.m. , to review the composition of the
Solid Waste Commission and other related issues . No action by the Board is required
at this time.
2. In regard to the report from the Solid Waste Commission recommending adoption of a
revised closing plan for sanitary landfills, the Committee has requested additional
information of staff in response to the testimony received before the Committee on
October 15, 1984, and will schedule this item for further hearing once that informa-
tion has been obtained.
3. In regard to the report from the Public Works Director regarding issues relating to
the proposed West Contra Costa Sanitary District waste-to-energy plant, the Committee
believes that it is premature for cities in Contra Costa County, or for other local
jurisdictions , to sign contracts with the West County agency until the Central
Sanitary District study being conducted, in cooperation with the County, is completed,
and recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to send a letter to each city
and other franchising jurisdictions requesting that they take no action to sign a
contract with the West County agency to guarantee the waste stream to that agency
until the Central Sanitary District study is completed and all local jurisdictions
have had an opportunity to review it in detail .
BACKGROUND:
On October 2, 1984, the Board referred to our Committee three issues and requested that
the Committee meet at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 1984 to hear all three items.
Other Board members indicated they would be present, and the Board meeting of October 9,
1984 was adjourned to 8:30 a.m. , October 15. The three items were:
I . A letter from the Chairman, Solid Waste Commission, requesting the Board to determine
whether modifications to the Solid Waste Management Planning process need to be made.
f Chairman indicated
Staff from the Solid Waste Commission speaking on behalfo the ,
. P 9
that the Commission would like to meet with the Internal Operations Committee and
Technical Advisory Committee to determine what changes in the composition of the
Solid Waste Commission might be appropriate. Margaret DePriester, a member of the
Solid Waste Commission, expressed the opinion that there was a tremendous lack of
communication between the Commission and the Board and urged that steps be taken to
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Y RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES) T. Powers N. C. Fanden
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 23. 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
/QO/N�THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Public Works Director ATTESTED V CG C.t/ aj, ffffel
Solid waste commission Phi! Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Internal operations Committee Supervi5orsand CountyAdministrator
County Administrator 0 179 79
M3e2/7-e3 BY DEPUTY
-2-
1 . (continued)
improve this communication.
George Gordon, attorney for Acme Fill , made reference to his August 22nd
letter to the Solid Waste Commission, noting three alternatives that have
been identified by the Commission and commenting on each. Mr. Gordon
expressed the position that there needed to be close involvement between
the private sector and the Solid Waste Commission. As a result, our
Committee has set up a meeting with the Solid Waste Commission and the
Technical Advisory Committee on November 19, 1984 and will make a further
report to the Board after that meeting.
2. A letter from the Solid Waste Commission recommending adoption of a revised
closing plan for sanitary landfills and that the Board rescind its
August 9, 1978 policy on closure plans for Class II disposal sites.
Staff from the Solid Waste Commission presented a report which was attached
to the Board's October 2, 1984 Order referring this matter to our Committee.
Staff noted the need to update the County's closure plan. Supervisor Fanden
requested further information on the requirement for a bond and suggested
that the Committee needed to be updated on the current State requirements
for bonding of sanitary landfills to insure appropriate closure of landfills.
Supervisor Powers asked whether the financial requirements could be made a
condition of a land use permit and staff indicated they would have to check
this with the Planning Department.
Mr. George Gordon, Attorney for Acme Fill , indicated that Acme has already
submitted financial responsibility reports to the State. His main concern
is that the County not duplicate what the State has already done. Mr. Gordon
suggested referring this matter to County staff to review what Acme has
already filed with the State. Members of the Committee agreed that they did
not want to duplicate any existing State requirements, but did want to insure
that closure plans were adequate.
Kathleen Nimr, who served on the Technical Advisory Committee, testified in
favor of setting future goals for closure plans so the public does not have
problems with the closure of landfill sites in the future. She urged that
financial responsibility be made a part of the County's plan because it is
not adequately covered by the State. The intent is to include language which
will ensure that financial responsibility is adequately covered in case the
State does not act to adequately require financial responsibility.
Based on this testimony, our Committee has requested additional information
on bonding requirements and other related items from staff and will consider
this matter at a future meeting once that information has been made available.
3. Our Committee considered a report from the Public Works Director dated
October 11 , 1984 summarizing the status of the West County waste-to-energy
project in response to concerns raised by Supervisor Powers at the Board's
October 2nd meeting.
Mr. Paul Kilkenny reviewed the staff report, which is attached to and made
a part of this Committee Report.
Our Committee received testimony from Bill Braga, General Manager, West
Contra Costa Sanitary District, John Splittorf, Project Manager for the
Waste-to-Energy project, and Bill Bender of Cooper Engineers. The testimony
received attempted to summarize the West Contra Costa Sanitary District's
history in the development of a waste-to-energy project designed to assist
the District in adequately disposing of some 55 tons a day of sewage sludge.
0 180
-3-
3. (continued)
The concept of combining the sewage sludge with garbage and burning
the combination with steam and electricity produced as a by-product
which could be sold was described. Mr. Bender noted that the potential
loss of revenue brought about by the changes in the federal tax laws
have not been taken into account in the financial estimates for the project,
and that, therefore, the failure to sell bonds by December 31st is not a
financial problem for the District. Mr. Bender went on to indicate that
if the District is unable to sell bonds, they will look at the possibility
of private funding for the project.
The Committee also received testimony from Mr. Dan Knapp of Berkeley,
who operates a private recycling firm which is able to substantially reduce
the waste stream generated in Berkeley and the surrounding area. Our
Committee suggested that Mr. Knapp make a presentation to the Solid Waste
Commission on the type of recycling program his firm has in place.
We also received testimony from Allen La Pointe, representing Richmond
Tomorrow, an environmental group which expressed substantial concerns about
the feasibility of the waste-to-energy plant. Mr. La Pointe noted that
the District does not yet own the property on which they intend to build
the plant and may have to acquire it by eminent domain. Mr. La Pointe also
noted that the Sanitary District currently is not paying for the disposal
of sludge at the Richmond Sanitary Service.
We also received testimony from Roger Dolan, General Manager of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District, on the status of their study attempting to
identify sites for a new sanitary landfill .
Following receipt of this testimony, it is the opinion of our Committee
that the potential financial difficulties of the waste-to-energy plant,
the lack of any control over the waste stream, and the failure to date to
fix a specific "tipping fee", plus the impact that such a plant could have
on the waste stream countywide, leads us to the conclusion that all local
jurisdictions having franchising authority for solid waste should avoid
signing any contracts with the West County agency until the study currently
underway with the County and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is
completed and can be reviewed in detail by those franchising jurisdictions.
0 181