Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051984 - 2.6 4 t Conga +. �! Costa ` County TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR - DATE: June 5, 1984 SUBJECT: Response to Sierra Club Analysis of Transportation Costs of Solid Waste to Acme Landfill Specific Request(s5 or Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION Acknowledge receipt this report. BACKGROUND On May 1, 1984, the Board referred to the Public Works Department a letter from the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club that requested the Board take a careful look at the cost of transporting municipal solid waste to Acme landfill. The Sierra Club believes that by diverting waste from certain collection areas to other landfills, the public will realize a cost savings. The proposed areas to be diverted are as follows: (1) Waste from the San Ramon Valley to the Vasco Road landfill in Alameda County. (2) Waste from Antioch and West Pittsburg to the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary landfill near Antioch. (3) Waste from Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Rodeo, and Briones areas to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond. The Sierra Club concludes that there would be a diversion of 400 tons per day with 700 tons per day continuing to be disposed at Acme. This results in a daily savings of trans- portation costs of $1,926, or an annual savings of about $700,000. This savings is equivalent to a savings of four percent of the total collection/haul/disposal costs to the Acme service area. The study performed by the Sierra Club is based on information provided primarily from the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Sierra Club also makes the assertion that it would be feasible to open an alternative upland landfill within 24 to 30 months. They state that the City of San Jose is now meeting such a time table with the proposed Kirby Canyon landfill. Staff has prepared an analysis which includes transportation, collection, and disposal costs for the collection areas that could possibly be sent to other landfills. The Sierra Club only considered transportation costs. Staff feels that it is necessary to include collection and disposal costs to adequately represent the cost and/or savings that the rate payers may experience should waste be disposed at landfills other than Acme. Both the Sierra Club and staff analyses are based on planning studies, not operational studies, and should be only used for reconnaissance-type studies which could lead to further detailed operational studies if the conclusion showed potential cost savings. Continued on attachment: X yes Signature-.-- Recommendation ignature:Recommendation of County Administrator Recomme; Ation of BoaA Committee Approve Other: Signatures : 00 285 i 2 The following is a summary of the staff analysis: (1) By hauling the waste from the San Ramon Valley to the Vasco Road landfill in Alameda County, there would be a reduction in daily tonnage to Acme of 93 tons, and would result in an approximate additional 10 percent cost to the rate payers in that area. (2) By hauling waste from the 'Rodeo, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, and Briones areas to the West Contra Costa Sanitary landfill, there would be a reduction in daily tonnage to Acme of 161 tons, and would result in an approximate additional 13 percent cost to the rate payers in that area. (3) By hauling waste from Antioch and West Pittsburg to the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill, there would be a reduction in daily tonnage to Acme of 102 tons per day, and would result in an approximate savings of eight percent to the rate payers in that area. By changing the place of disposal for waste from the above-listed areas, the capacities of the landfills in the County would be affected as follows: (1) For the West Contra Costa Sanitary landfill , the additional waste from the Acme service area would comprise a 23 Percent increase. The current estimate of remaining capacity for the landfill is 15 years. This action would reduce the life of the landfill by 3.4 years to 11.6 years. (2) For the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary landfill , the additional waste from the Acme service area would comprise a 52 percent increase. The current estimated capacity of the landfill is nine years. This action would reduce the life by 4.7 years to 4.3 years. (3) For the Acme landfill, the diversion of waste would result in a 27.5 percent reduction in waste being disposed of at Acme. If the Acme landfill is given the 97-acre five-year expansion, the landfill would last an additional 1.4 years to 6.4 years. An alternative could be to reduce the area of the expansion, due to the reduced volume of waste while still allowing for five years of use for the reduced area. Due to the configu- ration of the landfill, a 27.5 percent reduction in waste volume does not mean that a 27.5 percent reduction in landfill area can be obtained. The reduction in area would .be much less than 27.5 percent. Based on the staff analysis, the Public Works Department concludes that there is not sufficient justification for proposing that the waste from the San Ramon Valley be diverted to the Vasco Road landfill , or the waste from the Rodeo/Lafaye tte/Orinda/Moraga/Briones area be diverted to the West Contra Costa Sanitary landfill. Waste from Antioch and West Pittsburg may be justified in going to the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary landfill, however, given that the figures used in this analysis are rough estimates, the eight percent savings, needs a more detailed analysis. The detailed analysis should be the responsibility of the City of Antioch and its franchised collector. Another consideration is that the waste from Acme landfill diverted to the West Contra Costa and Contra Costa Waste landfills will result in a reduction in their remaining capacity creating an adverse impact on those currently using the two landfills. Staff has discussed the history of the Kirby Canyon landfill with the staff from the City of San Jose. The timetable for the Kirby Canyon landfill development is as follows : 1975 - Kirby Canyon site first identified in County Solid Waste Management Plan. 1981 - Site again identified in a solid waste management study. 1982 - Site again confirmed as potential site and included in city General Plan with three other potential landfill sites. Late 1982 - Site selected by Waste Management, Inc. for development with city approval. September 1983 - Environmental impact report certified by the City of San Jose. December 1983-January 1984 - Approval of site by Santa Clara County. October 1984 (projected) - All necessary permits acquired. October 1985 (projected) - Landfill in operation. �' 00 266 3 . . , Based on this history, staff finds that the City of San Jose estimates that it will take three years from when the site was selected for development to operation (late 1982 through late 1985). Not all permits have been acquired and there are legal challenges to the landfill site. There is no guarantee that all permits will be acquired by October 1984, therefore, the three-year time period is still an estimate. The County' s position that it takes five years to site and develop a new landfill site is consistent with the development of the Kirby Canyon site. In addition to the three years required to gain necessary approvals, at least two years is required to actually locate the site' and prepare the documentation necessary to start the regulatory approval process. Action of the Board on: June 5, 1984 Approved as Recommended­X Other X In addition to acknowledging receipt of this report, the Board REFERRED. it back to�the._Public Works staff to meet with David Tam of the San Francisco. Chapter of.the Sierra Club for further analysis and discussion of cost figures suggested by the Sierra Club. The Board further determined to. offer to the City of Antioch. the expertise of County staff to assist the City in dealing with the issue of importation of garbage from outside the County. In connection therewith, Supervisor Torlakson offered, as a member of the Solid Waste Commission and as the Representative from District V, to meet and coordinate with the cities in East .County on this matter. The Board further REAFFIRMED its commitment to pursue all reasonable alternatives to landfill . 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 June 5, 1984 Orig. Div.: Public Works (EC) J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK APD cc: County Administrator EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BDW Health Services-Env.Health Planning Department Sierra Club (via EC) By DEPUTY Solid Waste Comm.(via EC)