HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12051989 - 2.2 �-' 2-002
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM : Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Cwtra
October 31, 1989 Costa
DATE;
Adopting Memorandum of Understanding for Hazar Was e
SUBJECT: Management Facilities Siting
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute on behalf of the
County the Memorandum of Understanding for Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Siting concept, ' and to enter into
negotiations with Association of Bay Area.Governments and its
member counties to implement the MOU.
Request ABAG to incorporate the staff memo accompanying the
MOU to be included in the MOU. Specifically, the staff memo
outlines the fair share concept in terms of treatment groups
and should be included in the MOU language.
This recommendation is brought to the Board of Supervisors
with the support of the Hazardous Materials Commission.
Objectives: The Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Siting
Committee shall have the following objectives:
a) To foster a regional approach providing hazardous waste
management facilities .
b) To identify potentially suitable general areas for
hazardous waste management facilities within
participating counties .
c) To allocate an initial responsibility among participating
counties for the siting of hazardous waste management
facilities based on the fair share principal.
d) To promote reasonable local land-use control .
e) To provide a form for review of 1) excess and needed
hazardous waste capacity within participatory counties
and 2) agreements between counties. ; :
f ) To promote hazardous waste minimization by encouraging
on-site source reduction, recycling and treatment.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __._ YES SIGNATURE: ( L/a�/�`� C�C / / - Z�J�
r RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
/\ APPROVE OTHER
T�
S 1 GNATLIRE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON PeCP.TII}IP.Y S , 1989 APPROVED 'AS, RECOMMENDED _X_ & OTHER X
Also , APPOINTED Supervisor Sunne McPeak, Member, and Supervisor Nancy
Fanden, Alternate , to represent Contra Costa County on the, Hazardous
Waste Management Facility Siting Committee created by the MOU.
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: County Administrator ATTESTED ___ pV_Q.�1�„ �� r /q89___ ___
Health Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Marice Ashe SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
. M382;'7-83
g) To provide consistency and methodology for the
development of hazardous waste generation statistics for
participating counties .
h) To annually review the fair share allocation of siting
responsibility for the Bay Area (or participating
counties ) based upon the most current projection figures.
i) To provide a system for brokering waste capacity
allocations among participating counties consistent with
the principal of fair share.
FURTHER RECOMMEND that the County Administrator identify a
source of funds for this MOU.
REASONS AND RECONIlKENDATION/BACKGROUND:
Local governments in the San Francisco Bay Area desire to work
together to identify general areas for the location of
hazardous waste management facilities within the region, and
to develop and implement a method , to allocate the
responsibility for providing hazardous waste management
facilities based upon the fair share principal. The agreement
will create a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Siting
Committee that will be responsible for implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding. Actual 1sting decisions will
continue to be vested in local governments through the
exercise of existing land-use authority,.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Contra Costa must contribute a fee to fund the activities of
the committee. The fee for this project will be evenly
apportioned among signatory counties . ABAG estimates that
each county's contribution will range :from $6376 to $8000
depending upon the number of counties which become
signatories . The County Administrator will investigate
developing a county and industry consortium to fund this
agreement.
BO:MA:md
bo. 103
!s;
t,
Mou. 9/15/89
Page 1
Memorandum of Understanding
For Hazardous Waste Management Facility Siting
1. PU"OSE
Local governments in the San Francisco Bay Area desire to work together to
identify general areas for the location of hazardous waste management
facilities within the region, and to develop and implement a method to
allocate the responsibility for providing hazardous waste management
facilities based upon the fair share principle. This agreement creates a
Hazardous Waste Management Facility Siting Committee that will be responsible
for implementing these goals. Actual siting decisions will continue to be
vested in the local governments through the exercise of their existing land
use authority.
This agreement can be executed between and among the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), its member counties and other counties that are willing to
participate in this process and abide by the conditions set forth herein.
2. oBJECTIVES
The Committee shall have the following objectives:
a) To foster a regional approach to providing hazardous waste management
facilities.
J b) To identify potentially suitable general areas for hazardous waste
management facilities within participating counties.
c) To allocate an initial responsibility among participating counties for
the siting of hazardous waste management facilities based upon the fair share
principle.
J d) To promote reasonable local land use control.
e) To provide a forum for review of (1) excess and needed hazardous
waste capacity within participatory counties and (2) agreements between
counties.
MOU, 9/15/89
Page 2
f) To promote hazardous waste minimization by encouraging on-site source
reduction, recycling and treatment.
S) To provide consistency in methodology for the development of hazardous
waste generation statistics for participating counties.
b) To annually review the fair share allocation of siting responsibility
for the Bay Area (or participating counties) based upon the most current
projection figures.
1) To provide a system for brokering waste capacity allocations among
participating counties consistent with the principal of fair share.
3. DEFINITIONS
a. "Brokering waste capacity" shall mean trading the responsibility for
providing the opportunity to site treatment or disposal capacity for a
particular category of facility where a deficit exists in a county in exchange
for providing excess capacity for another category of facility.
b. "Local jurisdiction" shall mean counties, cities and all other
jurisdictions that have land use authority.
c. "Fair share" shall mean that a county is responsible for providing the
opportunity to site hazardous waste management facilities in the county in an
amount equivalent to the amount of hazardous waste generated within its
boundaries. If the county has approved the siting of a facility or facilities
that have a capacity equal to or in excess of the county's total hazardous
waste management needs, or entered into agreements with other counties
providing for the siting of a facility or facilities that have a capacity
equal to or in excess of the county's total hazardous waste management needs,
the county will have achieved its fair share of hazardous waste management
facility siting.
d. "Hazardous waste management facility" means any structure, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, and all contiguous land, used for
l. treatment, storage, resource recovery, disposal or recycling of ha::ardous
'I�` waste, serving more than one producer of hazardous waste.
i
MOU, 9/15/89
Page 3
e. "General areas for hazardous waste management facilities" shall mean
identification of locations that appear to be physically suitable for the
siting of hazardous waste management facilities according to criteria in the
county hazardous waste management plans, are identified in county hazardous
waste management plans, and are consistent with the fair share principle.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall become effective immediately after ABAG and five or more
counties have executed it.
S. CREATION OF COMMITTEE
Upon the effective date of this agreement there shall be created an advisory
ABAG committee, the Hazardous Waste Management Facility -Siting Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") to act in the manner described
herein.
b. POWERS
The Committee shall have the following powers and is hereby authorized to
perform all acts necessary for the exercise of these powers:
a) to identify and designate potentially suitable general areas for
regional hazardous waste management facilities within the participating
counties boundaries, consistent with the county Hazardous Waste Management
Plans, in order to allocate regional shortfalls in accordance with the
principal of fair share;
b) to broker waste capacity between participating counties and develop
agreements to allocate our regional shortfall;
C) to make plans and to conduct studies pertaining to the subject matter
of this agreement;
d) to recommend to the ABAG Executive Board an annual budget setting
HOU, 9/15/89
Page 4
forth all administrative, operational and capital expenses for the Committee,
together with the apportionment of such expenses to each participating county;
e) to be the body responsible for recommending actions to the
participating jurisdictions for implementation of fair share. These
recommendations shall be reported to the ABAG Executive Board not less than
once a year.
f) to serve as an advocate before state and federal permitting
authorities in support of applications to establish any hazardous waste
management facility which has the approval of the committee and of the local
jurisdiction in which the facility would be located, in accordance with the
objectives of this committee.
g) to serve as an opponent before state and federal permitting
authorities to discourage the siting of facilities that are not in accordance
with the designated general area siting opportunities identified by the
Committee.
h) to negotiate intercounty agreements with counties that may have excess
hazardous waste management capacity that are not parties to this agreement.
i) to sponsor programs to aid the implementation of the Committee's
objectives.
J) to create a model multijurisdictional fair share agreement to be
r r.
` ; ,Uncorporated into individual county plans called for under AB 2948 (Tanner
+1986) in partial fulfillment of said law.
y.
Q
7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP
Only ABAG counties that are willing to participate in this process and promote
the decisions and recommendations reached and pay the fees,issesse(l, are
eligible to execute this agreement during the first year. Other countic::
within the state may become members during the second year and thereafter
subject to approval by ABAC county Committee members. ABAG countirs joining
the Committee after the first year are not subject to this approval.
MMU, 9/15/S9
Page 5
S. ORGANIZATION
a. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY SITING COMMITTEE
The Committee shall consist of two representatives from each county:
i.) One member of the governing body of each county signing this
agreement and
Li.) One person representing all of the cities within each county.
Upon execution of this agreement, the governing body of each county shall
appoint one of its members to serve as a member of the Committee and another
member to serve as an alternate member of the Committee in the absence of the
regular appointee. The city selection committee of each member county shall
appoint a representative and alternate. For San Francisco, if that county has
executed this agreement, the mayor shall appoint a city representative. Each
member and alternate shall hold office from the first meeting of the Committee
after their appointment until their elected term is completed or a successor
is selected. Each member and alternate shall serve at the pleasure of the
appointing county.
The chairperson for the Committee shall be elected by the Committee membership
from among the Committee membership,
b. ABAG
ABAG will provide staff support to the Committee. ABAG staff support will be
paid from the Committee dues.
c. VOTE REQUIRED
A quorum is 2/3 of the members of the Committee. A majority vote of members
present with a quorum is required for any action. A vote can be reconsidered
when 1/3 (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the participating,
counties by majority vote of their boards of :supervisors vote for re-
evaluation of any decision.
MOU, 9/15/89
Page 6
d. MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
The Committee shall hold at least three meetings each year. The Committee
shall cause minutes of all meetings to be kept and shall, as soon as possible
after each meeting, forward a copy of the minutes to each member of the
Committee and to each county.
9. STAFFING
ABAG will provide the primary staff support to the committee. However, the
Committee may request additional staff support from member counties as
necessary to fulfill its duties.
10. FUNDING
Committee funding shall be based on a fiscal year calendar from July 1 through
June 30. The fee will be by the Committee by January 1 of each year for
the following fiscal year. The total cost of the activities of the Committee
shall be apportioned evenly among its member counties.
Upon the effective date or upon signing this agreement, whichever is
later, the signatory county or counties shall contribute a fee to fund the
activities of the Committee. If a county joins mid-fiscal year or if Commit-
tee activities commence mid-fiscal year then the Committee budget and fees for
each county shall be prorated to reflect the appropriate yearly proportion.
Fees will be due on July 31 for the fiscal year.
11. TERMINATION
a. This MOU shall terminate upon any of the following conditions:
J) The ABAG Executive Board may dissolve the Committee upon
majority vote;
w
ii) Two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Committee may vote to
dissolve the Committee;
'r
MOU, 9/15/89
Page 7
iii) Any of the above-listed events of termination shall become
effective thirty (30) days after the event which led to the termination.
iv) A county may withdraw by giving six month's notice
of intention to withdraw for the following fiscal year (July 1 through June
30). The Committee shall consider special circumstances for a shorter
notification of withdrawal.
b. In the event of termination any amount owing to the Committee for
past fees shall be paid.
C. Any financial assets of the Committee remaining after all
liabilities have been paid, upon termination of the Committee, shall be
distributed evenly to counties participating at the time of termination.
1 '
A
MEMORANDUM
September 15. 1989
To: Regional Planning Committee (RPC)
From: Suzanne LarsonG���,/
RE: Hazardous Waste Management Planning Subcommittee Recommendation
BACKGROUND
The Tanner process allowed counties to accept the responsibility to plan for
the management of hazardous wastes generated within their boundaries.
It is anticipated that many county plans will not be approved by the
Department of Health Services (DHS) because they use "fair share" facility
siting policies which are based on local need and currently non-existing
inter-county agreements. The DHS considers these policies too limiting and
restrictive. A major purpose of this subcommittee is to formulate a solution
that offers a planning alternative if the original Tanner legislation (AB
2948) is revised.
There is a need for regional cooperation in order to effectively plan for
hazardous waste management solutions in the Bay Area. Most, if not all,
counties are looking toward fair share allocations and intercounty cooperation
in order to meet their fair share responsibility. Regional alternatives which
provide economies of scale must be explored to ensure adequate hazardous waste
management facility capacity.
As you will recall, the RPC directed this subcommittee to examine how the
region could meet its fair share responsibility for hazardous waste management
facilities and to recommend an implementation approach. Specifically the
subcommittee was charged to develop recommendations covering the following
hazardous waste management topics:
1) Allocation of Fair Share. Responsibility
a. Define regional need
b. Examine and suggest an allocation formuMs
c. Consider economic feasibility
2) Institutional and Policy Issues
a. City and county roles
b. Private and public sector involvement
c. Organizational structure, e.g. JPA, MOU
d. Proactive versus reactive approaches
The subcommittee has been studying these issues since April. The purpose of
this memo is to outline the major recommendations to the RPC from this group.
RECOMMNDATION
STRUCTURE
The RPC Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste Management Planning recommends that
counties become signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding (HOU) developed
by the subcommittee. The MOU defines the following:
Organizational framework
Function
Allocation formula
Voting mechanism
Funding
The HOU creates an advisory Committee to identify siting opportunities and to
implement fair share responsibility for regional hazardous waste management
facilities. The MOU addresses each of the original concerns identified by the
RPC and provides a proactive mechanism to facilitate regional solutions.
The subcommittee considered two organizational structures for the committee:
a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and an MOU. The MOU was selected as the
preferred alternative because a JPA would be more difficult to implement title
to legal requirements, cost and most important, because it was considered less
politically viable. The HOU offers more flexibility and is less threatening
to local governments.
The MMU would eventually be incorporated into county hazardous waste
management plans enabling the counties to demonstrate thoir intent to meet the
RPC Rec, Pare 3
Tanner legislation (AB 2948) requirements. By doing so county governments
will meet their obligation to provide siting opportunities. The private
sector can then act accordingly.
By participating in the MOU counties do not lose their local land use
authority. The signatories to the MOU agree to provide siting opportunities
for treatment and disposal facilities for specific, negotiated types of
management facilities while all land use decisions still remain with the local
land use authority.
Z= SHARE F4B 9
The subcommittee recommends that regional capacity need be defined using the
generation and capacity estimates from the counties contained in the Regional
Hazardous Waste Management Plan or more current data if they are available.
The generation estimates shall consider the impact of waste reduction on
waste generation statistics. The allocation formula simply subtracts
generation from capacity by county, r treatment._.group, and for the region to
determine each counties overall contribution to regional facility needs.
The attached table presents the regional need determination and outlines the
data assumptions.
Several types of facilities are needed to serve the region's hazardous waste
generators. Of the eight treatment and disposal methods analyzed for the
Tanner process only two (aqueous organic and solvent recovery) have excess
facility capacity within our region. The other six (aqueous metals,
incineration, oil recovery, other recycling, stabilization and residuals) all
show deficits. Since most counties do not produce enough waste to
individually justify an economically viable facility the committee provides
system for counties to negotiate sharing responsibility for siting new
facilities. The committee would also address balancing the scales in teras o--
quid-pro-quo trade-offs of various types of hazardous waste facilities in
their negotiations.
For current planning activities a 253 generation reduction scenario is
suggested. As more data become available the reduction estimates will nved
re-evaluation. Changes to waste production and availability of waste
mbnagement facilities represent a dynamic situation which will iie.,ji a process
RPC Rec, Page 4
able to incorporate new county data as it becomes available and to
periodically adjust inter-county agreements.
�osT
Each signatory county would contribute a fee to fund the activities of the
Committee. The fee would be evenly apportioned among signatory counties. The
estimated required annual budget if all nine Bay Area counties are signatories
to the MOU. is $57,384. In order for the Committee to be created five or more
counties must participate.. We estimate that it will cost $40,000 to staff
committee activities even if only the minimum number of five counties
participate. Thus, if only five counties sign the MOU the fee assessment per
county will be a maximum of $8,000. If all nine counties participate the fee
assessment per county will be $6,376. The table below outlines the proposed
fee assessment depending upon the number of counties that participate.
Number gf Fee/county Total Budzet
counties
5 $8,000 $40,000
6 $7,594 $45,564
7 $7,188 $50,316
8 $6,782 $54,256
9 $6,376 $57,384
BENEFITS
Participating in this process gives counties a mechanism to work together to
identify siting opportunities and to develop and implement a method to
allocate the responsibility for providing hazardous waste management facilities
based upon the fair share principle. The committee structure allows counties
to coordinate siting opportunities. It provides a clearinghouse for counties
to trade and negotiate hazardous waste management facility responsibilities so
that economies of scale can be realized. Finally, this process provides a way
to implement "fair share" that should meet the intent of Clic Tanner
legislation.
� O
n
at �� A
a
- ► '-- a. w A
O C. C C O O O O O V
= 2
C. Cf
Os
u
� • M
• N M �
M N
3 =
7 O O O O O O O O O P
N P V M N N O w M N
N P J M N M • M M N
r A OO
O O S O O O O O Q au
M N J J .e • pV Y
M M O V N �O a • '$y"
M O J `00 A Y Ifto .wp
J
!'*As A
A M �
�j g 01
O O O O O O O O O O gggg v
� J • ? r O V M i b � A
3 A. O J J
O O O O O O O O O O
as r i N A. r. v
N .- = N • S P • J
O N V J M �O V O �O ••¢��
N yMr Y r eN• � �• � J �1 ^_
A
f
J � J V N O O• � �pS•
V u � r � • Y �J � i
V V • a p O M •+ •
A
M V • p O• = V = J v
v u • i p O M r A
O O O O O O O O O O T
O
J O . � •.vr M N � .1 M Q
w r r M O L J ,y !i
J Y � • V N
J • • O r uN .. r M
w � Y M Q r � � Y• r
i O pwp' O• !
.Pi. O • J • N M O ,,,�
M N r .O N • O M O 7 C ,
P O s
J V r O • V M �I M N
DATA ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1) The year 2000 projection estimates are based on the 1986 manifest data.
The projections assume that the relationship between waste generation and
economic output level in 1986 remains constant throughout the forecast
period. In addition the following specific assumptions of the projection
model which result in the deficiencies described below should be noted:
ASSUMPTIONS
A. Economic growth in the Bay Area counties will follow the
assumptions of Projections 87.
B. Industry trading patterns found in the base year of the input-
output model will not change over the forecast period.
C. The .technical relationship between waste generation by type and
the dollar output of the selected industries will not change over the
forecast period. The model assumes no efficiencies for the base
case. The technical relationship is linear.
DEFICIENCIES
A. Fixed technical relationships in the trading patterns of
industries over the forecast period.
B. No increased efficiencies which could either internalize waste
generation in the production process or reduce its production over
time due to more efficient process technology.
2) The likelihood of reduction varies according to type of waste and
treatment category. These differences are not accounted for in the
reduction scenario figures.
3) Regulatory requirements, government policy, and economic factors will
affect the volume of waste generated.
.
CO,
co
G
N
n
O CCD .} .,►
n a 3 01.
N CDO.
3tDZCD 06
4° to
r 0 ` Z
ItDfi
n � 0 3
CD
y,
N
rACD y
¢ CD N R1
Z
03
N N m +�
(D A w o
0 co
..
CD
O:t° cn N �
C